Continued:
This is totally in line with the way Harper and the Con's approach everything.
You wrote "every economist that thought the GST was the wrong tax to cut, I can come up with 10 that believes the GST was the right tax to cut." The fact is that even Ian Brodie, Harper's adviser at the time, can out and admitted that the 2% reduction in GST was politically motivated and contrary to the economic evidence".
For someone who won't even tell us your name, I find it not surprising that you would make bold, totally unsubstantiated and hugely exaggerated claim - totally in line with the way Harper and the Con's approach everything.
Also, I feel very comfortable suggesting that the 64% who voted against Harper don't want him running our country.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
30 November, 2009
- The GST was the wrong tax to cut, as almost every qualified economist in the country has underscored.
Reply to: Mary Ewen
elaboration...
Even Harper's advisor at the time, Ian Brodie, has admitted as much. “Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”;
I find it veryu difficult to believe that there are very many serous minded Canadians whho voted for Harper because of his promise to reduce the GST. Harper received approx 376% of the vote. His core support is approx 33 - 35% od f people who would vote for Harper no matter what his platform is. Approx. 66% of voters voted against Harper.
The greatest and longest lasting damage of the sponsorship scandle was giving Harper and his Con's a foothold on our government. It is something that we, our children and their children will be paying for for many years to come.
Reducing the GST by 2% is generally considered, from what I can see, read and experience, as being essentially useless in stimulating the Canadian economy and removes from the Federal coffers $12 billion a year in revenues. It was, manifestly, introduced by Harper and the Con’s for its optics.
The greatest and longest lasting damage of the sponsorship scandal was giving Harper and his Con's a foothold on our government. It is something that we, our children and their children will be paying for for many years to come.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
elaboration...
Even Harper's advisor at the time, Ian Brodie, has admitted as much. “Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”;
I find it veryu difficult to believe that there are very many serous minded Canadians whho voted for Harper because of his promise to reduce the GST. Harper received approx 376% of the vote. His core support is approx 33 - 35% od f people who would vote for Harper no matter what his platform is. Approx. 66% of voters voted against Harper.
The greatest and longest lasting damage of the sponsorship scandle was giving Harper and his Con's a foothold on our government. It is something that we, our children and their children will be paying for for many years to come.
Reducing the GST by 2% is generally considered, from what I can see, read and experience, as being essentially useless in stimulating the Canadian economy and removes from the Federal coffers $12 billion a year in revenues. It was, manifestly, introduced by Harper and the Con’s for its optics.
The greatest and longest lasting damage of the sponsorship scandal was giving Harper and his Con's a foothold on our government. It is something that we, our children and their children will be paying for for many years to come.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- He who disregards truth and reality inevitably contradicts himself (Confucius said ???) - Con'd Again by Harper, Flaherty, Baird, Van Loan, Kenny, et al. this time on their version of the HST.
History traps Ignatieff on HST issue, Chantal Hébert, 30 Nov.'09
http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/hst/article/732432--history-traps-ignatieff-on-hst-issue#article
Two years ago, when Harper reduced the GST by 2 points, not only did Harper, Flaherty, Baird, Van Loan, Kenny, and the other Con's say it was good for the economy but since then Harper and his Con's have been saying that this was their great contribution to preparation for the recession and singly saved us from the fate of the US.
Now they are saying that the HST, which will increase the tax by 1.5 points, is the best thing that could happen to our economy.
What Bunk!
We've been Con'd Again by Harper, Flaherty, Baird, Van Loan, Kenny, et al. this time on their version of the HST.
These two positions simply don't add up and manifestly contradict each other.
The problem is that Harper does everything for political reasons and not what is, in reality, best for Canada, Canadians and our future.
He who disregards truth and reality inevitably contradicts himself (Confucius said ???)
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/hst/article/732432--history-traps-ignatieff-on-hst-issue#article
Two years ago, when Harper reduced the GST by 2 points, not only did Harper, Flaherty, Baird, Van Loan, Kenny, and the other Con's say it was good for the economy but since then Harper and his Con's have been saying that this was their great contribution to preparation for the recession and singly saved us from the fate of the US.
Now they are saying that the HST, which will increase the tax by 1.5 points, is the best thing that could happen to our economy.
What Bunk!
We've been Con'd Again by Harper, Flaherty, Baird, Van Loan, Kenny, et al. this time on their version of the HST.
These two positions simply don't add up and manifestly contradict each other.
The problem is that Harper does everything for political reasons and not what is, in reality, best for Canada, Canadians and our future.
He who disregards truth and reality inevitably contradicts himself (Confucius said ???)
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Ignatieff and the Liberal may want to consider an equitable and compassionate approach to the HST.
submitted to: History traps Ignatieff on HST issue, Chantal Hébert, 30 Nov.'09
http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/hst/article/732432--history-traps-ignatieff-on-hst-issue#article
If the HST were to apply only to the extent that the current value added taxes in BC and Ontario apply and thus not represent an increase in taxes to those living in these Provinces; and, instead of bribing the Ontario government and BC governments with our hard earned tax dollars, increased rebates were put in place at the Federal and/or Provincial level (that way Ontario and BC Governments can take credit) for those whose economic hardship is impacted by the payment of HST.
Then, perhaps these Provinces can reap any benefit to business while at the same time mitigating the hardship both to those living in these Provinces as well as Canadian.
The problem with the HST is the manner in which the Harper government is implementing it. It will increase valued added taxes paid by those living in Ontario and BC by approximately 1.5 points, because the number of goods and services taxed will increase. This is being done in the middle of a recessions and despite Harper, Flaherty insisting they are not and will not increase taxes. Harper and Fleherty have agreed to bribe the BC and Ontario governments with almost 6 billion of our tax dollars and one can only wonder if that is not the real motivator behind Gordon Campbell's recent statement about "taking it to the bank".
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/hst/article/732432--history-traps-ignatieff-on-hst-issue#article
If the HST were to apply only to the extent that the current value added taxes in BC and Ontario apply and thus not represent an increase in taxes to those living in these Provinces; and, instead of bribing the Ontario government and BC governments with our hard earned tax dollars, increased rebates were put in place at the Federal and/or Provincial level (that way Ontario and BC Governments can take credit) for those whose economic hardship is impacted by the payment of HST.
Then, perhaps these Provinces can reap any benefit to business while at the same time mitigating the hardship both to those living in these Provinces as well as Canadian.
The problem with the HST is the manner in which the Harper government is implementing it. It will increase valued added taxes paid by those living in Ontario and BC by approximately 1.5 points, because the number of goods and services taxed will increase. This is being done in the middle of a recessions and despite Harper, Flaherty insisting they are not and will not increase taxes. Harper and Fleherty have agreed to bribe the BC and Ontario governments with almost 6 billion of our tax dollars and one can only wonder if that is not the real motivator behind Gordon Campbell's recent statement about "taking it to the bank".
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
29 November, 2009
- Gordon, if you believe Harper on the HST then all I can say is that you've been Con'd.
Liberals in bind over HST motion, Bill Curry, Saturday, Nov. 28
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-in-bind-over-hst-motion/article1380336/ Tab 15
Apparently Gordon Campbell told CTV "If you have an agreement with the federal government, even if it's a minority federal government, you should be able to take that to the bank,".
What a bunch of bunk - in the political arena this is 'kid's stuff'. Everyone knows that the HST, especially when it entails a gratuitous payment to the Provinces must be approved by Parliament. If Campbell doesn't know this then what in the world is he doing leading the government of BC. He should be too embarrassed to utter such a comment.
If it is true and Campbell really thinks that there was a binding agreement between the Province and the Federal Government he should resign and get someone in there that has some kind of inkling as to how governments in Canada work.
On the other hand if Harper and the Cons promised him 1.6 Billion dollars, then let Harper give it him out of his own pocket, or that of the Con Party, and not the tax payers of Canada.
Gordon, if you believe this then all I can say is that you've been Con'd.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-in-bind-over-hst-motion/article1380336/ Tab 15
Apparently Gordon Campbell told CTV "If you have an agreement with the federal government, even if it's a minority federal government, you should be able to take that to the bank,".
What a bunch of bunk - in the political arena this is 'kid's stuff'. Everyone knows that the HST, especially when it entails a gratuitous payment to the Provinces must be approved by Parliament. If Campbell doesn't know this then what in the world is he doing leading the government of BC. He should be too embarrassed to utter such a comment.
If it is true and Campbell really thinks that there was a binding agreement between the Province and the Federal Government he should resign and get someone in there that has some kind of inkling as to how governments in Canada work.
On the other hand if Harper and the Cons promised him 1.6 Billion dollars, then let Harper give it him out of his own pocket, or that of the Con Party, and not the tax payers of Canada.
Gordon, if you believe this then all I can say is that you've been Con'd.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Ignatieff and the Liberal may want to consider such an equitable and compassionate approach to the HST.
Liberals in bind over HST motion, Bill Curry, Saturday, Nov. 28
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-in-bind-over-hst-motion/article1380336/ Tab 14
The problem with the HST is the manner in which the Harper government is implementing it. It will increase valued added taxes paid by those living in Ontario and BC by approximately 1.5 points, because the number of goods and services taxed will increase. This is being done in the middle of a recessions and despite Harper, Flaherty insisting they are not and will not increase taxes. Harper and Fleherty have agreed to bribe the BC and Ontario governments with almost 6 billion of our tax dollars and one can only wonder if that is not the real motivator behind Gordon Campbell's recent statement about "taking it to the bank".
Also, there has been no clear explanation as to why Harper would pay this money to BC and Ontario, other than a bribe to implement the Harper version of the HST. What about all the other Provinces. Given the huge deficits that the Federal Government is already experiencing - estimated at well over 60 billion this year, how in the world can Harper, Flaherty and the Con's justify gratuitously promising such huge amounts, other than using tax payers money to buy vote for the Cons.
Harper ordering Flaherty and the other Con's not to comment and saying that it will die if this motion is not voted for and they will not bring it forward again is very substancial support for the fact that they are now trying to back away from these actions taken. Clearly, Harper realizes how bad this HST implementation is but does not have the courage or decency to admit it is bad and simply kill it. He is correct that it should die and a serious look at implementing an HST that is not so hurtful to people living in these Provinces or the Federal budget.
If the HST were to apply only to the extent that the current value added taxes in BC and Ontario apply and thus not represent an increase in taxes to those living in these Provinces; and, instead of bribing the Ontario government and BC governments with our hard earned tax dollars, increased rebates were put in place at the Federal and/or Provincial level (that way Ontario and BC Governments can take credit) for those whose economic hardship is impacted by the payment of HST. Then, perhaps these Provinces can reap any benefit to business while at the same time mitigating the hardship both to those living in these Provinces as well as Canadian.
Ignatieff and the Liberal may want to consider such an equitable and compassionate approach to the HST.
We certainly can't expect Harper to take such an approach. Harper and the Con's consider only what they think will help them to grab onto power and maintain it, Canada and all those living in Canada be damned.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-in-bind-over-hst-motion/article1380336/ Tab 14
The problem with the HST is the manner in which the Harper government is implementing it. It will increase valued added taxes paid by those living in Ontario and BC by approximately 1.5 points, because the number of goods and services taxed will increase. This is being done in the middle of a recessions and despite Harper, Flaherty insisting they are not and will not increase taxes. Harper and Fleherty have agreed to bribe the BC and Ontario governments with almost 6 billion of our tax dollars and one can only wonder if that is not the real motivator behind Gordon Campbell's recent statement about "taking it to the bank".
Also, there has been no clear explanation as to why Harper would pay this money to BC and Ontario, other than a bribe to implement the Harper version of the HST. What about all the other Provinces. Given the huge deficits that the Federal Government is already experiencing - estimated at well over 60 billion this year, how in the world can Harper, Flaherty and the Con's justify gratuitously promising such huge amounts, other than using tax payers money to buy vote for the Cons.
Harper ordering Flaherty and the other Con's not to comment and saying that it will die if this motion is not voted for and they will not bring it forward again is very substancial support for the fact that they are now trying to back away from these actions taken. Clearly, Harper realizes how bad this HST implementation is but does not have the courage or decency to admit it is bad and simply kill it. He is correct that it should die and a serious look at implementing an HST that is not so hurtful to people living in these Provinces or the Federal budget.
If the HST were to apply only to the extent that the current value added taxes in BC and Ontario apply and thus not represent an increase in taxes to those living in these Provinces; and, instead of bribing the Ontario government and BC governments with our hard earned tax dollars, increased rebates were put in place at the Federal and/or Provincial level (that way Ontario and BC Governments can take credit) for those whose economic hardship is impacted by the payment of HST. Then, perhaps these Provinces can reap any benefit to business while at the same time mitigating the hardship both to those living in these Provinces as well as Canadian.
Ignatieff and the Liberal may want to consider such an equitable and compassionate approach to the HST.
We certainly can't expect Harper to take such an approach. Harper and the Con's consider only what they think will help them to grab onto power and maintain it, Canada and all those living in Canada be damned.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
28 November, 2009
- Spector attacks Ignatieff for McGuinty's defence to the G&M attack on Ignatieff - Shame on You Norman
continued from last Post
Norman Spector wrote:11/28/2009 2:17:44 PM
Lloyd Macilquham
If Mr. Ignatieff is sincere about keeping global warming within two degrees, scientists estimate that it will require a reduction of between 25 and 40 percent relative to 1990 levels. I rather doubt that he intends to campaign on that level of reductions.
Lloyd MacIlquham replied:11/28/2009 2:48:43 PM
Norman Spector,
Thanks for the reply.
Now I feel bad about musing if you get paid by Harper and the Cons.
However, I would like to know if the money you receive from the Globe and Mail for writing your column is declared by the Con Party as a political contribution. If not, then, perhaps, a contribution 'in kind' by you.
I have every confidence that Michael Ignatieff will do the right (morally right, that is) thing regarding Canada, all Canadians, our economy, our position in the world and towards making a better future for us, or children and contributing positively to a better Canada and a better world. Certainly if I have anything to do with it he will.
I can't say the same for Harper.
Nor have I ever heard anyone that would make such a statement, whether they are simply incredibly biased, politically motivated, or it is simply the ravelings of a lunatic.
Harper and the Con's have spent the last four and more years deliberately poisoning the waters. I am sure that Ignatieff and the Liberals will take the appropriate steps to purge the waters and rid us of this plague.
Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in recent history that they have no hesitation in using no matter how reprehensible and morally and secularly dishonest, approaching Canadians on an emotional level, with a total disregard for the truth.
Harper and the Con's are only concerned with grabbing onto power and maintaining it, at any cost, and Canada be damned.
The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of distortion, cover-up, deception, suppression of truth, slandering, mud slinging, vicious personal attacks and character assassination in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues. Their attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the dank ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Norman Spector wrote:11/28/2009 2:17:44 PM
Lloyd Macilquham
If Mr. Ignatieff is sincere about keeping global warming within two degrees, scientists estimate that it will require a reduction of between 25 and 40 percent relative to 1990 levels. I rather doubt that he intends to campaign on that level of reductions.
Lloyd MacIlquham replied:11/28/2009 2:48:43 PM
Norman Spector,
Thanks for the reply.
Now I feel bad about musing if you get paid by Harper and the Cons.
However, I would like to know if the money you receive from the Globe and Mail for writing your column is declared by the Con Party as a political contribution. If not, then, perhaps, a contribution 'in kind' by you.
I have every confidence that Michael Ignatieff will do the right (morally right, that is) thing regarding Canada, all Canadians, our economy, our position in the world and towards making a better future for us, or children and contributing positively to a better Canada and a better world. Certainly if I have anything to do with it he will.
I can't say the same for Harper.
Nor have I ever heard anyone that would make such a statement, whether they are simply incredibly biased, politically motivated, or it is simply the ravelings of a lunatic.
Harper and the Con's have spent the last four and more years deliberately poisoning the waters. I am sure that Ignatieff and the Liberals will take the appropriate steps to purge the waters and rid us of this plague.
Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in recent history that they have no hesitation in using no matter how reprehensible and morally and secularly dishonest, approaching Canadians on an emotional level, with a total disregard for the truth.
Harper and the Con's are only concerned with grabbing onto power and maintaining it, at any cost, and Canada be damned.
The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of distortion, cover-up, deception, suppression of truth, slandering, mud slinging, vicious personal attacks and character assassination in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues. Their attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the dank ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Spector attacks Ignatieff for McGuinty's defence to the G&M attack on Ignatieff - Shame on You Norman
Dear Prime Minister, Norman Spector, November 27, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/dear-prime-minister/article1379729/ Tab 9
Norman Spector has once again demonstrated his extreme bias towards Harper and the Con's. One wonders whether he gets paid by Harper for his writing efforts. I can't imagine the Globe and Mail paying for this, well actually I can, they have gone to extremes to find someone like Spector.
It also shows the kind of distortion and deliberate muddying of the waters, without any consideration for the truth, for which Harper and the Con's are so famous.
Ignatieff's position as set out in Quebec City the other day is to keep Global Warming within two degrees. It is Global Warming that is the problem and it is about time someone took the rational approach and laid out the basic strategy to do what it takes to reduce Warming. To achieve this end he stated that ...
We will set 1990 - not 2006 - as the base line and set differentiated targets for developing countries.
The government would create a binding and verifiable cap-and-trade system - with hard caps leading to absolute reductions - that is fair to all regions and industries, and compatible with other systems for international carbon trading.
A Liberal government would set an ambitious target of quadrupling Canada’s production of renewable energy by Canada’s 150th birthday in 2017, and promote energy efficiency through new transit systems, high-speed rail, and ”smart” electrical grids.
Mr. Ignatieff also proposed a single Clean Energy Act that would adopt the toughest vehicle emissions standards in North America and outlined strategies to protect our air, water, forests and Arctic.
See:
http://www.liberal.ca/en/newsroom/media-releases/16979_michael-ignatieff-presents-liberal-environment-climate-change-and-clean-energy-jobs-plan;
and,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23201281/Highlights-of-a-Liberal-plan-for-the-environment-climate-change-and-clean-energy-jobs
At the time the Globe and Mail attacked Ignatieff for being vague about the 1990 base line. Everybody knows why Ignatieff would choose the 1990 base-line - it is the objective standard that has been used since Kyoto; and, why Harper and the Con's chose a 2006 baseline - to obscure and muddy the waters in an effort to blur the fact that Harper doesn't want to do anything about Global Warming in case it offended the Con's and their supporters, Canada and the World be damned.
McGuinty explains that without having access to the relevant information that is only available to the Government, how can you come up with hard numbers. And, we can be certain that Harper and the Con's will not be releasing any such information.
McGuinty points out one of those "dark corners" of out current Government and what does Spector do, Shine light on it as his fearless leader "Harper" has declared. No, Spector attacks Ignatieff for McGuinty's defence to the G&M attack on Ignatieff.
Great job Spector! Just want Canada needs Globe and Mail!
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/dear-prime-minister/article1379729/ Tab 9
Norman Spector has once again demonstrated his extreme bias towards Harper and the Con's. One wonders whether he gets paid by Harper for his writing efforts. I can't imagine the Globe and Mail paying for this, well actually I can, they have gone to extremes to find someone like Spector.
It also shows the kind of distortion and deliberate muddying of the waters, without any consideration for the truth, for which Harper and the Con's are so famous.
Ignatieff's position as set out in Quebec City the other day is to keep Global Warming within two degrees. It is Global Warming that is the problem and it is about time someone took the rational approach and laid out the basic strategy to do what it takes to reduce Warming. To achieve this end he stated that ...
We will set 1990 - not 2006 - as the base line and set differentiated targets for developing countries.
The government would create a binding and verifiable cap-and-trade system - with hard caps leading to absolute reductions - that is fair to all regions and industries, and compatible with other systems for international carbon trading.
A Liberal government would set an ambitious target of quadrupling Canada’s production of renewable energy by Canada’s 150th birthday in 2017, and promote energy efficiency through new transit systems, high-speed rail, and ”smart” electrical grids.
Mr. Ignatieff also proposed a single Clean Energy Act that would adopt the toughest vehicle emissions standards in North America and outlined strategies to protect our air, water, forests and Arctic.
See:
http://www.liberal.ca/en/newsroom/media-releases/16979_michael-ignatieff-presents-liberal-environment-climate-change-and-clean-energy-jobs-plan;
and,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23201281/Highlights-of-a-Liberal-plan-for-the-environment-climate-change-and-clean-energy-jobs
At the time the Globe and Mail attacked Ignatieff for being vague about the 1990 base line. Everybody knows why Ignatieff would choose the 1990 base-line - it is the objective standard that has been used since Kyoto; and, why Harper and the Con's chose a 2006 baseline - to obscure and muddy the waters in an effort to blur the fact that Harper doesn't want to do anything about Global Warming in case it offended the Con's and their supporters, Canada and the World be damned.
McGuinty explains that without having access to the relevant information that is only available to the Government, how can you come up with hard numbers. And, we can be certain that Harper and the Con's will not be releasing any such information.
McGuinty points out one of those "dark corners" of out current Government and what does Spector do, Shine light on it as his fearless leader "Harper" has declared. No, Spector attacks Ignatieff for McGuinty's defence to the G&M attack on Ignatieff.
Great job Spector! Just want Canada needs Globe and Mail!
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
27 November, 2009
- Harper and the Cons' Tangled Web of Deceipt
Tories will challenge Ignatieff on HST, John Ibbitson, Nov. 27, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-will-challenge-ignatieff-with-hst-ultimatum/article1379397/ Tab 44
Wow, a prime example of "Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive" (Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, 1808).
If I recall, I thought Harper said everything would be a Non-Confidence vote. The interesting thing is that he is explicitly stating it isn't. Given the financial impact I am not so sure.
So, the question is why is he doing this.
It can only be that he knows it represents a tax increase and despite trying to hang it on the provincial governments of BC and Ontario it is likely very few people are deceived by him on this. Harper has already given Flaherty instructions not to discuss the HST. So, basically Harper realizing his mistake in bringing on the HST is trying to blame Ignatieff for the failure to implement it.
Harper was pressing for the HST because of the damage to Canada' finances caused by reducing the GST by two points. As projections show the HST represents approximately 1.5 points increase in value added taxes, thus making up ¾'s at least. Harper reduced the GST by 2 points, despite the overwhelming number of people in our society whose job it is to know about these things saying it was the wrong thing to do, for purely political gain for himself and the Con's, and Canada be damned. Even Harper's assistant at the time has admitted as much.
When is Harper, Fleherty, Mackay and the other Con's going stop the manipulating, deceiving, distorting, obscuring, obstructing, viciously attacking, defaming and the character assassinations, all at the expense of the good of Canada and all Canadian. Don't hold your breath - I'm sure they wouldn't know how, even if they wanted to.
The biggest things is that these are the guys running our country, and we let them. I hope Ignatieff and the Liberals vote this 'Bill' down in no uncertain terms and let Harper know just were the people of Ontario and BC stand.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-will-challenge-ignatieff-with-hst-ultimatum/article1379397/ Tab 44
Wow, a prime example of "Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive" (Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, 1808).
If I recall, I thought Harper said everything would be a Non-Confidence vote. The interesting thing is that he is explicitly stating it isn't. Given the financial impact I am not so sure.
So, the question is why is he doing this.
It can only be that he knows it represents a tax increase and despite trying to hang it on the provincial governments of BC and Ontario it is likely very few people are deceived by him on this. Harper has already given Flaherty instructions not to discuss the HST. So, basically Harper realizing his mistake in bringing on the HST is trying to blame Ignatieff for the failure to implement it.
Harper was pressing for the HST because of the damage to Canada' finances caused by reducing the GST by two points. As projections show the HST represents approximately 1.5 points increase in value added taxes, thus making up ¾'s at least. Harper reduced the GST by 2 points, despite the overwhelming number of people in our society whose job it is to know about these things saying it was the wrong thing to do, for purely political gain for himself and the Con's, and Canada be damned. Even Harper's assistant at the time has admitted as much.
When is Harper, Fleherty, Mackay and the other Con's going stop the manipulating, deceiving, distorting, obscuring, obstructing, viciously attacking, defaming and the character assassinations, all at the expense of the good of Canada and all Canadian. Don't hold your breath - I'm sure they wouldn't know how, even if they wanted to.
The biggest things is that these are the guys running our country, and we let them. I hope Ignatieff and the Liberals vote this 'Bill' down in no uncertain terms and let Harper know just were the people of Ontario and BC stand.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Jason Kenny, if there is a fog it is from Harper, Toews, Baird, MacKay, Flaherty, you and all the Con's and hopefully it is starting to lift.
Speaker rules flyers may have damaged MP's reputation, Mike De Souza, November 26, 2009
http://www.canada.com/news/Speaker+rules+flyers+have+damaged+reputation/2273061/story.html#PostComment
If I were Cotler I would be talking to my lawyer right now about launching a libel suit against Harper, Vic Toews, the Con Party or whomever it is that is responsible. Presumably these 10%-ers are not covered by Parliamentary privilege.
After being chastised by the Speaker of the House of Commons, do they do the decent thing and apologies. No, they try to say that what they said was true and the other Parties do it. Perhaps Jason Kenny could show us all one of these other pamphlets from the Opposition that compares to the one at issue. Instead of bald accusations and defamations perhaps the Con's could respond with the facts for a change. If there is a fog it is from Harper, Kenny, Toews, Baird, MacKay, Flaherty and all the Con's and hopefully it is starting to lift.
Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in
recent history that they have no hesitation in using no matter how reprehensible and morally and
secularly dishonest, approaching Canadians on an emotional level, with a total disregard for the truth.
Harper and the Con's are only concerned with grabbing onto power and maintaining it, at any cost, and Canada be damned.
The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of distortion, cover-up, duplicity, deception, obscuration and obfuscation, suppression of truth and, slandering, mud slinging and character assassination in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues. Their attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the dank ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.canada.com/news/Speaker+rules+flyers+have+damaged+reputation/2273061/story.html#PostComment
If I were Cotler I would be talking to my lawyer right now about launching a libel suit against Harper, Vic Toews, the Con Party or whomever it is that is responsible. Presumably these 10%-ers are not covered by Parliamentary privilege.
After being chastised by the Speaker of the House of Commons, do they do the decent thing and apologies. No, they try to say that what they said was true and the other Parties do it. Perhaps Jason Kenny could show us all one of these other pamphlets from the Opposition that compares to the one at issue. Instead of bald accusations and defamations perhaps the Con's could respond with the facts for a change. If there is a fog it is from Harper, Kenny, Toews, Baird, MacKay, Flaherty and all the Con's and hopefully it is starting to lift.
Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in
recent history that they have no hesitation in using no matter how reprehensible and morally and
secularly dishonest, approaching Canadians on an emotional level, with a total disregard for the truth.
Harper and the Con's are only concerned with grabbing onto power and maintaining it, at any cost, and Canada be damned.
The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of distortion, cover-up, duplicity, deception, obscuration and obfuscation, suppression of truth and, slandering, mud slinging and character assassination in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues. Their attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the dank ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
26 November, 2009
- It is Better That We As Canadians Clear the Air than to Have it Come up in the International Criminal Court, in The Hague - continued
In G&M post - see below:
JR_1 wrote: "We know what was in those emails from Colvin …"
I posted, in reply:
The fact is we don't know what was in those E-mail and other important documents. The MP's on the Committee have made that and the difficultly in doing a proper job without them very clear.
Without the production of the pertinent documents and affording proper cross-examination there is hardly any point in waiting until the committee is finished.
That is why a Public Inquiry is required - to compel production of the documents and afford proper cross-examination of witnesses. For Harper, MacKay and the Con's to withhold the documents, viciously attack Colvin's credibility and do it in Parliament and national media where Colvin has no chance to defend himself, is reprehensible and smacks of a serious cover-up.
Until there is a full-fledged Public Inquiry with suitable access to all the documents involved, the best source for their contents is Colvin himself, considering he wrote them and he is not facing the possibility of accusations of being complicit in war crimes, or other violations of International or domestic law. Colvin's testimony is quite blunt and quite damning. It is not sufficient for Mackay, Harper or anyone else to simply deny everything. This is especially true given the amount of clear and convincing documentation that was published at the time from very credible and reliable sources setting the torture and abuse by the Afghan authorities.
Why should we have to wait until it come up in the International Criminal Court, in The Hague, to find out the truth.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
JR_1 wrote: "We know what was in those emails from Colvin …"
I posted, in reply:
The fact is we don't know what was in those E-mail and other important documents. The MP's on the Committee have made that and the difficultly in doing a proper job without them very clear.
Without the production of the pertinent documents and affording proper cross-examination there is hardly any point in waiting until the committee is finished.
That is why a Public Inquiry is required - to compel production of the documents and afford proper cross-examination of witnesses. For Harper, MacKay and the Con's to withhold the documents, viciously attack Colvin's credibility and do it in Parliament and national media where Colvin has no chance to defend himself, is reprehensible and smacks of a serious cover-up.
Until there is a full-fledged Public Inquiry with suitable access to all the documents involved, the best source for their contents is Colvin himself, considering he wrote them and he is not facing the possibility of accusations of being complicit in war crimes, or other violations of International or domestic law. Colvin's testimony is quite blunt and quite damning. It is not sufficient for Mackay, Harper or anyone else to simply deny everything. This is especially true given the amount of clear and convincing documentation that was published at the time from very credible and reliable sources setting the torture and abuse by the Afghan authorities.
Why should we have to wait until it come up in the International Criminal Court, in The Hague, to find out the truth.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- It is Better That We As Canadians Clear the Air than to Have it Come up in the International Criminal Court, in The Hague.
Excerpt submitted to:
Debate on torture allegations very painful process to watch, Stephen Maher, 26 Nov.'09
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1154609.html
and
Warnings on detainees were e-mailed
to MacKay's office, Steven Chase, Nov. 26, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/warnings-on-detainees-were-e-mailed-to-mackays-office/article1377821/ Tab 38 & Tab 40
Maher, I think you make a good point. The three Generals that testified yesterday do have an interest in the outcome of this. It is also very understandable that they would defend their troops. In fact, if they weren't prepared to do that, they shouldn't have been in the positions they were.
It is a bit unfair to expect these people to dedicate their lives to fighting for Canada then attack their credibility for doing their job. But, the same can be said for Colvin and, most importantly, the truth must be know. The only way to do this is to allow an independent judicial body have access to all the pertinent documents - i.e. a Public Inquiry. Harper knows this, MacKay knows this, everyone knows this. It is better that we do this as Canadians than to to have it come up in the International Criminal Court, in The Hague.
One major problem that Harper, MacKay, the three Generals, and anyone else that says there were no concerns, have is the extent of the clear and convincing, uncontradicted and very serious reports publicly available to all the World regarding the abuse and torture in the Afghan prisons as set out by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, US Department of State, United Nations, etc. This was put to the Generals yesterday when they were testifying but without a clear and direct answer.
It is unimaginable that any professional diplomat stationed in Afghanistan, or anybody in Foreign Affairs dealing with Afghanistan would not be aware of these materials, assuming they can read, of course. Any E-mail that even insinuated torture or abuse of prisoners should have jumped out of the page and smacked the reader in the face. Also, For MacKay, Harper or the three Generals to say there was no proof is a ludicrous position to take for obvious reasons and I would be very surprised if it offered a defense to war crime charges.
Also, it was put to Hillier very bluntly, "was it his opinion that Canadian troops were not violating International Law, or domestic law, by transferring the Afghan prisoners to the Afghan authorities" [sic]. Once again there was no direct blunt "yes", or "no", but a vague, meandering response that left the answer very unclear. Given the times allotted to the MP's and that they may not be trained in Cross-Examination, it was left in this very unsatisfactory state. This is, of course, a vital question going right to the heart of the matter and demanded a "yes" or "no" answer. At an Inquiry, it is much more likely that we would get the answer.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Debate on torture allegations very painful process to watch, Stephen Maher, 26 Nov.'09
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1154609.html
and
Warnings on detainees were e-mailed
to MacKay's office, Steven Chase, Nov. 26, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/warnings-on-detainees-were-e-mailed-to-mackays-office/article1377821/ Tab 38 & Tab 40
Maher, I think you make a good point. The three Generals that testified yesterday do have an interest in the outcome of this. It is also very understandable that they would defend their troops. In fact, if they weren't prepared to do that, they shouldn't have been in the positions they were.
It is a bit unfair to expect these people to dedicate their lives to fighting for Canada then attack their credibility for doing their job. But, the same can be said for Colvin and, most importantly, the truth must be know. The only way to do this is to allow an independent judicial body have access to all the pertinent documents - i.e. a Public Inquiry. Harper knows this, MacKay knows this, everyone knows this. It is better that we do this as Canadians than to to have it come up in the International Criminal Court, in The Hague.
One major problem that Harper, MacKay, the three Generals, and anyone else that says there were no concerns, have is the extent of the clear and convincing, uncontradicted and very serious reports publicly available to all the World regarding the abuse and torture in the Afghan prisons as set out by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, US Department of State, United Nations, etc. This was put to the Generals yesterday when they were testifying but without a clear and direct answer.
It is unimaginable that any professional diplomat stationed in Afghanistan, or anybody in Foreign Affairs dealing with Afghanistan would not be aware of these materials, assuming they can read, of course. Any E-mail that even insinuated torture or abuse of prisoners should have jumped out of the page and smacked the reader in the face. Also, For MacKay, Harper or the three Generals to say there was no proof is a ludicrous position to take for obvious reasons and I would be very surprised if it offered a defense to war crime charges.
Also, it was put to Hillier very bluntly, "was it his opinion that Canadian troops were not violating International Law, or domestic law, by transferring the Afghan prisoners to the Afghan authorities" [sic]. Once again there was no direct blunt "yes", or "no", but a vague, meandering response that left the answer very unclear. Given the times allotted to the MP's and that they may not be trained in Cross-Examination, it was left in this very unsatisfactory state. This is, of course, a vital question going right to the heart of the matter and demanded a "yes" or "no" answer. At an Inquiry, it is much more likely that we would get the answer.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Put the Grit back in this party of pushovers, Lawrence Martin, Nov. 25, 2009,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/put-the-grit-back-in-this-party-of-pushovers/article1377551/ Tab 7
Studies have shown that you must counter a negative attack ad within 48 hours or it seeps into the subconscious of those exposed to it. This kind of propaganda technique has been used in the past - the old principle of 'if you tell a big enough lie often enough, people start to believe it'.
The other part of it is that Harper and the Cons have a very strong core of support of apparently approximately 33-35 % of the population. Also, these supporters tend to be extreme in their views and support. They contribute money to the Party in a very liberal fashion (or should I say non-Liberal). You cannot overlook this aspect in any analysis of this issue. The seemingly limitless source of funds (aside from converting tax payers money to pay for their propaganda) is the reason that they can saturate the air waves with their attack ads or as some have described it carpet bombing. The core support is important as we saw how Harper incited them almost to hysteria just before Harper suspended Parliament. In other words 1/3 of the population feed off these attack ads and aggressions by Harper and the Con. To get an idea of the seriousness of this, one need only reflect that it only take around 15% of the population to overturn a government, if they are dedicated to it.
It is not simply a question of Ignatieff and the Liberals not fighting Harper and his Gang of Con's "in the trenches", so to speak. It is also the 2/3 rds of Canadians that vote against Harper that are complacent and sit by and allow Harper to carry on this way, and considering he is running this country, you can only wonder way. It is also all those who support and have supported the Liberal Party who are sitting back and criticizing the leadership of the party and not lifting a finger to to help in fighting back.
McKenna is right Harper and the Con's are thugs, as their viscous attack on Colvin once again demonstrates. What are all Liberals going to do about it. What are all Canadians going to do about it.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/put-the-grit-back-in-this-party-of-pushovers/article1377551/ Tab 7
Studies have shown that you must counter a negative attack ad within 48 hours or it seeps into the subconscious of those exposed to it. This kind of propaganda technique has been used in the past - the old principle of 'if you tell a big enough lie often enough, people start to believe it'.
The other part of it is that Harper and the Cons have a very strong core of support of apparently approximately 33-35 % of the population. Also, these supporters tend to be extreme in their views and support. They contribute money to the Party in a very liberal fashion (or should I say non-Liberal). You cannot overlook this aspect in any analysis of this issue. The seemingly limitless source of funds (aside from converting tax payers money to pay for their propaganda) is the reason that they can saturate the air waves with their attack ads or as some have described it carpet bombing. The core support is important as we saw how Harper incited them almost to hysteria just before Harper suspended Parliament. In other words 1/3 of the population feed off these attack ads and aggressions by Harper and the Con. To get an idea of the seriousness of this, one need only reflect that it only take around 15% of the population to overturn a government, if they are dedicated to it.
It is not simply a question of Ignatieff and the Liberals not fighting Harper and his Gang of Con's "in the trenches", so to speak. It is also the 2/3 rds of Canadians that vote against Harper that are complacent and sit by and allow Harper to carry on this way, and considering he is running this country, you can only wonder way. It is also all those who support and have supported the Liberal Party who are sitting back and criticizing the leadership of the party and not lifting a finger to to help in fighting back.
McKenna is right Harper and the Con's are thugs, as their viscous attack on Colvin once again demonstrates. What are all Liberals going to do about it. What are all Canadians going to do about it.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
25 November, 2009
- If I were Cotler I would be talking to my lawyer right now about launching a libel suit against Harper, Vic Toews, the Con Party or whomever it is that is responsible
excerpt posted to: "How low Tories go", Frances Russell, 25/11/2009
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/how-low-tories-go-73367857.html
Once again Frances Russell has written a very good political commentary, informative, objective and to the point.
The attack on Colvin's credibility is, of course, outrageous. So, is the 10%-er slandering Irwin Cotler, Ignatieff and the Liberal Party. The biggest shocker is that these things are being done by the same people who are running our country. This not some two-bit group of misfits operating on the fringe of our society, not now since they got into power anyway.
If I were Cotler I would be talking to my lawyer right now about launching a libel suit against Harper, Vic Toews, the Con Party or whomever it is that is responsible, presumably these 10%-ers are not covered by Parliamentary privilege.
Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in
recent history that they have no hesitation in using no matter how reprehensible and morally and
secularly dishonest, approaching Canadians on an emotional level, with a total disregard for the truth.
Harper and the Con's are only concerned with grabbing onto power and maintaining it, at any cost, and Canada be damned.
The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of distortion, cover-up, duplicity, deception, obscuration and obfuscation, suppression of truth and, slandering, mud slinging and character assassination in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues. Their attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the dank ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.
Also, one can only wonder to what extent, given the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials.
With a Press that is willing to write articles in an open, informative, objective manner such as this one, all Canadians will see Harper and his Con's for what they really are.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/how-low-tories-go-73367857.html
Once again Frances Russell has written a very good political commentary, informative, objective and to the point.
The attack on Colvin's credibility is, of course, outrageous. So, is the 10%-er slandering Irwin Cotler, Ignatieff and the Liberal Party. The biggest shocker is that these things are being done by the same people who are running our country. This not some two-bit group of misfits operating on the fringe of our society, not now since they got into power anyway.
If I were Cotler I would be talking to my lawyer right now about launching a libel suit against Harper, Vic Toews, the Con Party or whomever it is that is responsible, presumably these 10%-ers are not covered by Parliamentary privilege.
Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in
recent history that they have no hesitation in using no matter how reprehensible and morally and
secularly dishonest, approaching Canadians on an emotional level, with a total disregard for the truth.
Harper and the Con's are only concerned with grabbing onto power and maintaining it, at any cost, and Canada be damned.
The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of distortion, cover-up, duplicity, deception, obscuration and obfuscation, suppression of truth and, slandering, mud slinging and character assassination in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues. Their attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the dank ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.
Also, one can only wonder to what extent, given the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials.
With a Press that is willing to write articles in an open, informative, objective manner such as this one, all Canadians will see Harper and his Con's for what they really are.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
24 November, 2009
- HST - Harper and his advisers are having a good laugh over this one.
Comment on:
Can HST flip-flop boost the Liberals?, Opposing tax may not be right, but it's smart, John Ivison, National Post, 24 Nov.'09
http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=42469079-0db0-4da3-b283-396aea1a7c2e
It's not the HST, it's the increase in taxes and in the middle of a recession!
It may be that the HST, theoretically, is beneficial to the economy overall. However, the way in which it is being implemented - i.e. taxing things that weren't taxed before or increasing the tax on things that were, that is causing all the problems. In other words, it represents a tax increase and of almost 2 points (a recent Toronto-Dominion Bank Report indicates that the HST will represent an effective tax hike of 1.5%). This is when Harper, Flaherty and the Con's keep saying they won't increase taxes and right in the middle of a recession. And that's the real issue.
The reduction of the GST and the promises of no taxes is such a huge problem for Harper and the Con's that Harper order Flaherty not to discuss the HST. Further evidence of this being a problem for Harper and the Con's is the fact that Harper is, in reality, paying off the Ontario and BC governments in order to implement this HST, the Ontario government is getting a rebate of approx $4.3 billion from Harper and BC is getting $1.6 billion just to implement it. Harper is thus trying to undo the economic damage done by reducing the GST 2 points and passing the buck, so to speak, off to the Ontario and BC provincial governments - well worth spending 6 billion of Canadian's hard earned tax dollars.
I'm sure that behind closed doors, Harper and his advisers are having a good laugh over this one.
Harper and the Con's reduced the GST by two points, when they knew that it was bad economic policy. They did it solely for the political benefits and Canada be damned. It is no co-incidence that the HST will represent an increase in value added taxes of nearly 2 points, overall. Ian Brodie, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff, said in Montreal at the annual conference of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada. “Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”
It may be that Paul Martin and the Liberals in the past were in favour of an HST. But, that was not in the middle of a recession and there is nothing to indicate that the way it would be done would have represented an increase in value added tax over all.
I think that Mr. Ignatieff and the Liberals would be quite right in opposing Harper's implementation of this tax.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Can HST flip-flop boost the Liberals?, Opposing tax may not be right, but it's smart, John Ivison, National Post, 24 Nov.'09
http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=42469079-0db0-4da3-b283-396aea1a7c2e
It's not the HST, it's the increase in taxes and in the middle of a recession!
It may be that the HST, theoretically, is beneficial to the economy overall. However, the way in which it is being implemented - i.e. taxing things that weren't taxed before or increasing the tax on things that were, that is causing all the problems. In other words, it represents a tax increase and of almost 2 points (a recent Toronto-Dominion Bank Report indicates that the HST will represent an effective tax hike of 1.5%). This is when Harper, Flaherty and the Con's keep saying they won't increase taxes and right in the middle of a recession. And that's the real issue.
The reduction of the GST and the promises of no taxes is such a huge problem for Harper and the Con's that Harper order Flaherty not to discuss the HST. Further evidence of this being a problem for Harper and the Con's is the fact that Harper is, in reality, paying off the Ontario and BC governments in order to implement this HST, the Ontario government is getting a rebate of approx $4.3 billion from Harper and BC is getting $1.6 billion just to implement it. Harper is thus trying to undo the economic damage done by reducing the GST 2 points and passing the buck, so to speak, off to the Ontario and BC provincial governments - well worth spending 6 billion of Canadian's hard earned tax dollars.
I'm sure that behind closed doors, Harper and his advisers are having a good laugh over this one.
Harper and the Con's reduced the GST by two points, when they knew that it was bad economic policy. They did it solely for the political benefits and Canada be damned. It is no co-incidence that the HST will represent an increase in value added taxes of nearly 2 points, overall. Ian Brodie, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff, said in Montreal at the annual conference of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada. “Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”
It may be that Paul Martin and the Liberals in the past were in favour of an HST. But, that was not in the middle of a recession and there is nothing to indicate that the way it would be done would have represented an increase in value added tax over all.
I think that Mr. Ignatieff and the Liberals would be quite right in opposing Harper's implementation of this tax.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
23 November, 2009
- Afghan Detainees come back to haunt Harper, MacKay
Political reasons to attack torture testimony, Stephen Maher, Mon. Nov 23
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1154143.html
Once again the CronicleHearald Columnists have come up with very good coverage of an important political issue. It is quickly becoming the place to go to for informed, thorough and meaningful political commentary.
Harper, Mackay, Baird, and the other Con's approach to any criticism is to insult and attack the character of those that are criticizing, as opposed to dealing with the issue in a rational, civil fashion, as was and is their duty as Parliamentarians and those running the our Government. They have been doing this all along. Harper, MacKay and the other Con's have no interest in the truth, doing what's right (morally, that is) or properly addressing the issues of the day. They only are concerned with grabbing onto power and maintaining it, at any cost, and Canada be damned.
This is a prime example of their actions coming back to haunt them. Rather than approach this issue in 2006 - 2007 in a reasonable fashion as was, and is, their duty as the government and respond in a meaningful, useful fashion to the, quite legitimate, criticism of Afghan detainee transfers, they denied everything, hid information, obstructed and distorted and attacked the credibility of whomever crossed their path. They didn't have to take that approach but that is what they are all about, as I said, Canada be damned.
The problem is that this is on the record for all to see and now they are even more desperate since not only do they have they original issue staring them in the face again, they have their original denials, attacks, cover-up as well.
If anyone has any question about what Colvin was saying about detainee torture and abuse, you only need to read the US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Report for 2006 on Afghanistan
(state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78868.htm), published March, 2007:
. . .
Complaints of serious human rights violations committed by representatives of national security institutions, including arbitrary arrest, unconfirmed reports of torture, and illegal detention were numerous.
. . .
Prison and Detention Center Conditions
. . .
Prisoners were reportedly beaten, tortured, and denied adequate food.
If I were Mackay, I would be too embarrassed to admit I never heard of torture in Afghanistan during that period.
If anyone's credibility is under question it's that of Peter Mackay, Stephen Harper and the other Con's.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1154143.html
Once again the CronicleHearald Columnists have come up with very good coverage of an important political issue. It is quickly becoming the place to go to for informed, thorough and meaningful political commentary.
Harper, Mackay, Baird, and the other Con's approach to any criticism is to insult and attack the character of those that are criticizing, as opposed to dealing with the issue in a rational, civil fashion, as was and is their duty as Parliamentarians and those running the our Government. They have been doing this all along. Harper, MacKay and the other Con's have no interest in the truth, doing what's right (morally, that is) or properly addressing the issues of the day. They only are concerned with grabbing onto power and maintaining it, at any cost, and Canada be damned.
This is a prime example of their actions coming back to haunt them. Rather than approach this issue in 2006 - 2007 in a reasonable fashion as was, and is, their duty as the government and respond in a meaningful, useful fashion to the, quite legitimate, criticism of Afghan detainee transfers, they denied everything, hid information, obstructed and distorted and attacked the credibility of whomever crossed their path. They didn't have to take that approach but that is what they are all about, as I said, Canada be damned.
The problem is that this is on the record for all to see and now they are even more desperate since not only do they have they original issue staring them in the face again, they have their original denials, attacks, cover-up as well.
If anyone has any question about what Colvin was saying about detainee torture and abuse, you only need to read the US Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Report for 2006 on Afghanistan
(state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78868.htm), published March, 2007:
. . .
Complaints of serious human rights violations committed by representatives of national security institutions, including arbitrary arrest, unconfirmed reports of torture, and illegal detention were numerous.
. . .
Prison and Detention Center Conditions
. . .
Prisoners were reportedly beaten, tortured, and denied adequate food.
If I were Mackay, I would be too embarrassed to admit I never heard of torture in Afghanistan during that period.
If anyone's credibility is under question it's that of Peter Mackay, Stephen Harper and the other Con's.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
22 November, 2009
- Tom Flanigan Con's Canadians on Gun Registry Vote
Tories tar long-gun success by 'swinging too hard' on torture, Jane Taber
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/tories-tar-long-gun-success-by-swinging-too-hard-on-torture/article1372213/Tab 21
Flanagan would say that the Con's have won the registry battle, no matter what happened. This is just another example of "it doesn't have to be true, just plausible". It is simply to try to convince true conservatives that Harper really hasn't abandoned real conservative values.
The Free vote allowed by Ignatieff means that Parliament won, at least with respect to those Canadians represented by the Opposition.
How can the Harper government claim victory when it was a private member's bill. Surely the Harper Government could have introduced the Bill and part of their official agenda. Everyone, especially true conservatives, should take note of this. It clearly represents a backing away of true conservative values for the sole purpose of maintaining power.
Van Loan suppressing the firearms commissioner's report on the gun registry before the vote on the gun registry means that, once again, truth, honesty and good government have lost out.
Nothing can be read from 8 Liberals voting to have long guns taken out of the Gun Registry. Nor can anything, legitimately, be taken from Ignatieff encouraging his caucus to vote together against it. This is a free vote and it is not to get rid of the Gun Registry, but only a part. In '04 I ran as a Liberal candidate and one of my "local platform planks" was to have the Gun Registry reviewed with a purpose of distinguishing between the urban centres and rural areas. No one in the Liberal Party ever suggested that I might be 'breaking ranks'. If I were an MP now I would likely vote for the Bill, and at no time consider it as 'breaking ranks' or somehow being unfaithful to the Party leader. The Liberal party is dedicated to open, transparent discussion of ideas. It is Harper that suppresses Con MPs. The Canadian political landscape would be a very barren, hostile, dark and distorted place if all Canadian expected all political parties to act the same way Harper and the Cons do.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/tories-tar-long-gun-success-by-swinging-too-hard-on-torture/article1372213/Tab 21
Flanagan would say that the Con's have won the registry battle, no matter what happened. This is just another example of "it doesn't have to be true, just plausible". It is simply to try to convince true conservatives that Harper really hasn't abandoned real conservative values.
The Free vote allowed by Ignatieff means that Parliament won, at least with respect to those Canadians represented by the Opposition.
How can the Harper government claim victory when it was a private member's bill. Surely the Harper Government could have introduced the Bill and part of their official agenda. Everyone, especially true conservatives, should take note of this. It clearly represents a backing away of true conservative values for the sole purpose of maintaining power.
Van Loan suppressing the firearms commissioner's report on the gun registry before the vote on the gun registry means that, once again, truth, honesty and good government have lost out.
Nothing can be read from 8 Liberals voting to have long guns taken out of the Gun Registry. Nor can anything, legitimately, be taken from Ignatieff encouraging his caucus to vote together against it. This is a free vote and it is not to get rid of the Gun Registry, but only a part. In '04 I ran as a Liberal candidate and one of my "local platform planks" was to have the Gun Registry reviewed with a purpose of distinguishing between the urban centres and rural areas. No one in the Liberal Party ever suggested that I might be 'breaking ranks'. If I were an MP now I would likely vote for the Bill, and at no time consider it as 'breaking ranks' or somehow being unfaithful to the Party leader. The Liberal party is dedicated to open, transparent discussion of ideas. It is Harper that suppresses Con MPs. The Canadian political landscape would be a very barren, hostile, dark and distorted place if all Canadian expected all political parties to act the same way Harper and the Cons do.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
- Reading Harper's statement is like entering Bizzaro World.
Harper lauds press freedom in speech, doesn't take questions from reporters, The Canadian Press, Nov. 22, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-lauds-press-freedom-in-speech-doesnt-take-
questions-from-reporters/article1373034/Tab 25
Perhaps then Harper will agree to a public inquiry into the Afghan prisoner transfer scandal and “shine
light into [it's] dark corners”.
Reading Harper's statement is like entering Bizzaro World.
First it is the Prime Minister's duty to ensure that there are no "dark corners" in the government.
Second, of all the Prime Ministers and governments I have lived through Harper and the Con's have done the most to create and hide "dark corners". They have far outstripped any other Canadian government in distorting the truth and obscuring and obstructing it.
Harper and the Con's fundamental principle is, precisely, "truth is only what the Con's says it is”.
The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of distortion, cover-up, duplicity, deception, obscuration and obfuscation, suppression of truth and, slandering, mud slinging and character assassination in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues. Their attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the dank ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.
Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in
recent history that they have no hesitation in using no matter how reprehensible and morally and
secularly dishonest. Approaching Canadians on an emotional level, with a total disregard for the truth
is a basic strategy for Harper and the Con's.
Also, one can only wonder to what extent, given the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials.
Perhaps, Harper and the Con's don't put a gun to reporters' heads, but the effect is the same.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-lauds-press-freedom-in-speech-doesnt-take-
questions-from-reporters/article1373034/Tab 25
Perhaps then Harper will agree to a public inquiry into the Afghan prisoner transfer scandal and “shine
light into [it's] dark corners”.
Reading Harper's statement is like entering Bizzaro World.
First it is the Prime Minister's duty to ensure that there are no "dark corners" in the government.
Second, of all the Prime Ministers and governments I have lived through Harper and the Con's have done the most to create and hide "dark corners". They have far outstripped any other Canadian government in distorting the truth and obscuring and obstructing it.
Harper and the Con's fundamental principle is, precisely, "truth is only what the Con's says it is”.
The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of distortion, cover-up, duplicity, deception, obscuration and obfuscation, suppression of truth and, slandering, mud slinging and character assassination in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues. Their attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the dank ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.
Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in
recent history that they have no hesitation in using no matter how reprehensible and morally and
secularly dishonest. Approaching Canadians on an emotional level, with a total disregard for the truth
is a basic strategy for Harper and the Con's.
Also, one can only wonder to what extent, given the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials.
Perhaps, Harper and the Con's don't put a gun to reporters' heads, but the effect is the same.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
20 November, 2009
- MacKay's defense on Afghan Detainee Transfers is the OJ Simpson defense - vis.: 'oh yah, Prove It'
Tories attack credibility of diplomat
who blew whistle on torture, Steven Chase, Paul Koring and Josh Wingrove, Nov. 20, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-work-to-undermine-diplomat-who-blew-whistle-on-torture/article1369993/Tab 96
When Harper, MacKay and the Con's generally are denying something their approach is "it doesn't matter whether it's true or not, prove it"
When Harper, MacKay and the Con's generally are alleging something, their approach is "it doesn't matter whether it's true or not, as long as its plausible".
The underlying principle is that 'The Truth Doesn't Matter'. 'The only thing that matters is political expedience, the Truth be damned'.
Peter MacKay attacking Richard Colvin's credibility is totally ludicrous. MacKay is the one who promised not to allow the Progressive Conservative Party absorbed by the Alliance (now Con Party), and when he did he wrote off the 'promise' by saying that over 90% of the party supported it. Peter MacKay is the guy who said 'if it's not in Hansard, it didn't happen'.
Attacking Colvin's credibility by saying he had the chance to tell MacKay in person when he was there on an official visit, is of course, simply grasping at straws. First Colvin had sent out, what was it, 80 E-mails to everyone. MacKay does not explain why Colvin would have any reason to believe that Mackay or anyone else had not received it. It was an official visit and bringing this matter up was out of line and could cost him his job. He had also been leaned on by his superiors about his 'whistle-blowing' activities and this would only re-enforce his concerns about losing his job.
The chances that Richard Colvin is lying, or even exaggerating, is remote. He has no motivation to lie and every motivation to not say anything - his career. It would be very easy for him to say nothing and he had to know that by raising this issue he would be exposing himself to the fate of any "whistle-blower' - exactly what is now happening. Also, apparently the Federal Court has accepted Colvin testimony as credible, where there was an opportunity to cross-examine him, fairly and withing the rule of law.
MacKay's attack on Colvin's credibility is an unconscionable effort to obscure and obstruct and prevent the truth from being revealed to all Canadians.
Either MacKay and other high level government officials were aware of these E-mails or they weren't. Attacking Colvin's credibility could only be an excuse if MacKay had been aware of them but wrote them off as untrustworthy. If MacKay was aware of them then he ought to come out and admit it. Then, it is a question of, given that these reports are very serious with catastrophic consequences for Canada's reputation and the troupes in Afghanistan, as well as the Afghans being tortured, and are from such a high level diplomat they ought to have been investigated, as opposed to simply written off. Of course MacKay would also have to explain his position back in 2006 - 2007 when he was basically saying the same thing as now (except the part about being aware of these E-mails) and attacking the loyalty of serious and true minded Members of Parliament as being Taliban sympathizers.
If MacKay is saying that he, and other high level government officials, inside the armed forces and out, were not aware of these E-mails, then it is unconscionable to attack Colvin's credibility, they couldn't have written these E-mails off as not credible if they weren't aware of them. Then the question is why they weren't aware of them, itself scandalous, given their nature.
The only motivation Colvin could have had was for the reputation of Canada and the protection of Canadian troupes from accusations of war crimes.
Also, as Colvin has testified:
According to a very authoritative source, many of the Afghans we detained had no connection to the
insurgency whatsoever. From an intelligence point of view, they had little or no value. Frankly, the
NDS (Afghan intelligence service) did not want them.
Some of these Afghans may have been foot soldiers or day fighters. But many were just local people —
farmers, truck drivers, tailors, peasants; random human beings in the wrong place at the wrong time;
young men in their fields and villages who were completely innocent but were nevertheless rounded up.
In other words, we detained, and handed over for severe torture, a lot of innocent people.
This, of course, flies in the face of MacKay's allegation that Colvin was relying on people who through acid in the face of girls and the Taliban and exposes Mackay, Harper and the Con's for what they really are, right wing extremists who only concern is clutching, grabbing and holding onto power, Canada be damned.
Excerpt of Richard Colvin's testimony at the House of Commons committee
(from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/testimony-on-afghan-detainees/article1368821/
Why should Canadians care?
One may ask rhetorically, ‘Even if Afghan detainees were being tortured, why should Canadians care?'
There are five compelling reasons.
First, our detainees were not what intelligence services would call ‘high-value targets,' such as IED
(improvised explosive device) bomb-makers, al-Qaeda terrorists or Taliban commanders. ‘High-value
targets' would be detained under a completely different mechanism that involves special forces and
targeted, intelligence-driven operations. The Afghans I am discussing today were picked up by
conventional forces during routine military operations, and on the basis typically not of intelligence
but suspicion or unproven denunciation.
According to a very authoritative source, many of the Afghans we detained had no connection to the
insurgency whatsoever. From an intelligence point of view, they had little or no value. Frankly, the
NDS (Afghan intelligence service) did not want them.
Some of these Afghans may have been foot soldiers or day fighters. But many were just local people —
farmers, truck drivers, tailors, peasants; random human beings in the wrong place at the wrong time;
young men in their fields and villages who were completely innocent but were nevertheless rounded up.
In other words, we detained, and handed over for severe torture, a lot of innocent people.
A second reason Canadians should care is that seizing people and rendering them for torture is a very
serious violation of international and Canadian law. Complicity in torture is a war crime. It is
illegal and prosecutable.
Third, Canada has always been a powerful advocate of international law and human rights. That is a
keystone of who we are as Canadians, and what we have always stood for as a people and nation. If we
disregard our core principles and values, we also lose our moral authority abroad. If we are complicit
in the torture of Afghans in Kandahar, how can we credibly promote human rights in Tehran or Beijing?
Fourth, our actions were counter to our own stated policies. In April 2007, Prime Minister Stephen
Harper said publicly that “Canadian military officials don't send individuals off to be tortured.” That
was indeed our official policy. But behind the military's wall of secrecy, that, unfortunately, is
exactly what we were doing.
And finally, even if all the Afghans we detained had been Taliban, it would still have been wrong to
have them tortured. The Canadian military is proud and professional organization, thoroughly trained in
the rules of war and the correct treatment of prisoners.
I would like to quote the authoritative military manual on counter-insurgency. It says that “the abuse
of detained persons is immoral, illegal and unprofessional .... Torture, and cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment, is never a morally permissible option, even if lives depend on gaining information
.... The methods used (by the military) must reflect the nation's commitment to human dignity and
international humanitarian law.”
Even when we look at our U.S. allies, who work with us in Kandahar, their top commander Gen. David
Petraeus lists 10 ‘big ideas' of counter-insurgency. One is ‘Live your values.' He said that “whenever
we place expediency above our values, we end up regretting it.” In a counter-insurgency, “when you lose
moral legitimacy, you lose the war.”
Canada's counter-insurgency doctrine makes the same points: “Persons not taking part in hostilities” —
including fighters who have been detained — “must be treated humanely. Once (local) citizens have lost
confidence in (foreign) military forces ..., their sympathies and support will be transferred to the
insurgents.”
Counter-insurgency is an argument to win the support of the locals. Every action, reaction or failure
to act become part of the debate. In Kandahar, Canada needs to convince local people that we are better than the Taliban, that our values were superior, that we would look after their interests and protect
them. In my judgment, some of our actions in Kandahar, including complicity in torture, turned local
people against us. Instead of winning hearts and minds, we caused Kandaharis to fear the foreigners.
Canada's detainee practices alienated us from the population and strengthened the insurgency.
Thank you
who blew whistle on torture, Steven Chase, Paul Koring and Josh Wingrove, Nov. 20, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-work-to-undermine-diplomat-who-blew-whistle-on-torture/article1369993/Tab 96
When Harper, MacKay and the Con's generally are denying something their approach is "it doesn't matter whether it's true or not, prove it"
When Harper, MacKay and the Con's generally are alleging something, their approach is "it doesn't matter whether it's true or not, as long as its plausible".
The underlying principle is that 'The Truth Doesn't Matter'. 'The only thing that matters is political expedience, the Truth be damned'.
Peter MacKay attacking Richard Colvin's credibility is totally ludicrous. MacKay is the one who promised not to allow the Progressive Conservative Party absorbed by the Alliance (now Con Party), and when he did he wrote off the 'promise' by saying that over 90% of the party supported it. Peter MacKay is the guy who said 'if it's not in Hansard, it didn't happen'.
Attacking Colvin's credibility by saying he had the chance to tell MacKay in person when he was there on an official visit, is of course, simply grasping at straws. First Colvin had sent out, what was it, 80 E-mails to everyone. MacKay does not explain why Colvin would have any reason to believe that Mackay or anyone else had not received it. It was an official visit and bringing this matter up was out of line and could cost him his job. He had also been leaned on by his superiors about his 'whistle-blowing' activities and this would only re-enforce his concerns about losing his job.
The chances that Richard Colvin is lying, or even exaggerating, is remote. He has no motivation to lie and every motivation to not say anything - his career. It would be very easy for him to say nothing and he had to know that by raising this issue he would be exposing himself to the fate of any "whistle-blower' - exactly what is now happening. Also, apparently the Federal Court has accepted Colvin testimony as credible, where there was an opportunity to cross-examine him, fairly and withing the rule of law.
MacKay's attack on Colvin's credibility is an unconscionable effort to obscure and obstruct and prevent the truth from being revealed to all Canadians.
Either MacKay and other high level government officials were aware of these E-mails or they weren't. Attacking Colvin's credibility could only be an excuse if MacKay had been aware of them but wrote them off as untrustworthy. If MacKay was aware of them then he ought to come out and admit it. Then, it is a question of, given that these reports are very serious with catastrophic consequences for Canada's reputation and the troupes in Afghanistan, as well as the Afghans being tortured, and are from such a high level diplomat they ought to have been investigated, as opposed to simply written off. Of course MacKay would also have to explain his position back in 2006 - 2007 when he was basically saying the same thing as now (except the part about being aware of these E-mails) and attacking the loyalty of serious and true minded Members of Parliament as being Taliban sympathizers.
If MacKay is saying that he, and other high level government officials, inside the armed forces and out, were not aware of these E-mails, then it is unconscionable to attack Colvin's credibility, they couldn't have written these E-mails off as not credible if they weren't aware of them. Then the question is why they weren't aware of them, itself scandalous, given their nature.
The only motivation Colvin could have had was for the reputation of Canada and the protection of Canadian troupes from accusations of war crimes.
Also, as Colvin has testified:
According to a very authoritative source, many of the Afghans we detained had no connection to the
insurgency whatsoever. From an intelligence point of view, they had little or no value. Frankly, the
NDS (Afghan intelligence service) did not want them.
Some of these Afghans may have been foot soldiers or day fighters. But many were just local people —
farmers, truck drivers, tailors, peasants; random human beings in the wrong place at the wrong time;
young men in their fields and villages who were completely innocent but were nevertheless rounded up.
In other words, we detained, and handed over for severe torture, a lot of innocent people.
This, of course, flies in the face of MacKay's allegation that Colvin was relying on people who through acid in the face of girls and the Taliban and exposes Mackay, Harper and the Con's for what they really are, right wing extremists who only concern is clutching, grabbing and holding onto power, Canada be damned.
Excerpt of Richard Colvin's testimony at the House of Commons committee
(from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/testimony-on-afghan-detainees/article1368821/
Why should Canadians care?
One may ask rhetorically, ‘Even if Afghan detainees were being tortured, why should Canadians care?'
There are five compelling reasons.
First, our detainees were not what intelligence services would call ‘high-value targets,' such as IED
(improvised explosive device) bomb-makers, al-Qaeda terrorists or Taliban commanders. ‘High-value
targets' would be detained under a completely different mechanism that involves special forces and
targeted, intelligence-driven operations. The Afghans I am discussing today were picked up by
conventional forces during routine military operations, and on the basis typically not of intelligence
but suspicion or unproven denunciation.
According to a very authoritative source, many of the Afghans we detained had no connection to the
insurgency whatsoever. From an intelligence point of view, they had little or no value. Frankly, the
NDS (Afghan intelligence service) did not want them.
Some of these Afghans may have been foot soldiers or day fighters. But many were just local people —
farmers, truck drivers, tailors, peasants; random human beings in the wrong place at the wrong time;
young men in their fields and villages who were completely innocent but were nevertheless rounded up.
In other words, we detained, and handed over for severe torture, a lot of innocent people.
A second reason Canadians should care is that seizing people and rendering them for torture is a very
serious violation of international and Canadian law. Complicity in torture is a war crime. It is
illegal and prosecutable.
Third, Canada has always been a powerful advocate of international law and human rights. That is a
keystone of who we are as Canadians, and what we have always stood for as a people and nation. If we
disregard our core principles and values, we also lose our moral authority abroad. If we are complicit
in the torture of Afghans in Kandahar, how can we credibly promote human rights in Tehran or Beijing?
Fourth, our actions were counter to our own stated policies. In April 2007, Prime Minister Stephen
Harper said publicly that “Canadian military officials don't send individuals off to be tortured.” That
was indeed our official policy. But behind the military's wall of secrecy, that, unfortunately, is
exactly what we were doing.
And finally, even if all the Afghans we detained had been Taliban, it would still have been wrong to
have them tortured. The Canadian military is proud and professional organization, thoroughly trained in
the rules of war and the correct treatment of prisoners.
I would like to quote the authoritative military manual on counter-insurgency. It says that “the abuse
of detained persons is immoral, illegal and unprofessional .... Torture, and cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment, is never a morally permissible option, even if lives depend on gaining information
.... The methods used (by the military) must reflect the nation's commitment to human dignity and
international humanitarian law.”
Even when we look at our U.S. allies, who work with us in Kandahar, their top commander Gen. David
Petraeus lists 10 ‘big ideas' of counter-insurgency. One is ‘Live your values.' He said that “whenever
we place expediency above our values, we end up regretting it.” In a counter-insurgency, “when you lose
moral legitimacy, you lose the war.”
Canada's counter-insurgency doctrine makes the same points: “Persons not taking part in hostilities” —
including fighters who have been detained — “must be treated humanely. Once (local) citizens have lost
confidence in (foreign) military forces ..., their sympathies and support will be transferred to the
insurgents.”
Counter-insurgency is an argument to win the support of the locals. Every action, reaction or failure
to act become part of the debate. In Kandahar, Canada needs to convince local people that we are better than the Taliban, that our values were superior, that we would look after their interests and protect
them. In my judgment, some of our actions in Kandahar, including complicity in torture, turned local
people against us. Instead of winning hearts and minds, we caused Kandaharis to fear the foreigners.
Canada's detainee practices alienated us from the population and strengthened the insurgency.
Thank you
14 November, 2009
- Harper and the Con's Attack Ads Is Reason For Low Voter Turnout - Continued
Posted to:
A bad night for the Liberals, Robert Silver, 10 Nov.'09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/the-big-winner-in-quebec/article1357381/ Tab 7
I can't believe they are still allowing posts to this article.
For anybody who might be following this article . . .
Here is some more support for the fact that the low voter turn out in this last by-election is attributable to the Harper and the Con's negative attack ads.
It also gives some insight to the Harper statement the other day "Profoundly evil to seek to resolve political differences through the destruction of the other side" [sic] (see my post: 09 November, 2009
- Is Harper's Fraudian Slip Showing, Again )
"
Alan Whitehorn, professor of political science at the Royal Military College of Canada, finds it alarming.
He worries about "this notion of all-out war, of obliterating the opposition rather than simply defeating them. My feeling is all the major parties have a right to exist," he said in an interview. "I've done work on genocide so I'm very sensitive to language that goes too far and begins to create a culture of intolerance and denigration...
"I've long been a critic of negative advertising that in the short term may help you to win elections. But in the long term, the cost to the political process and the esteem politicians and the political process suffer is counterproductive and is one of the factors contributing to low voter turnout, not to mention the sense of fatalism, despair and alienation as people ask 'What can I do?' "
"
Canadian politics should be civil, not civil war
By: Frances Russell 22/01/2009
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/canadian_politics_should_be_civil_not_civil_war38129694.html
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
A bad night for the Liberals, Robert Silver, 10 Nov.'09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/the-big-winner-in-quebec/article1357381/ Tab 7
I can't believe they are still allowing posts to this article.
For anybody who might be following this article . . .
Here is some more support for the fact that the low voter turn out in this last by-election is attributable to the Harper and the Con's negative attack ads.
It also gives some insight to the Harper statement the other day "Profoundly evil to seek to resolve political differences through the destruction of the other side" [sic] (see my post: 09 November, 2009
- Is Harper's Fraudian Slip Showing, Again )
"
Alan Whitehorn, professor of political science at the Royal Military College of Canada, finds it alarming.
He worries about "this notion of all-out war, of obliterating the opposition rather than simply defeating them. My feeling is all the major parties have a right to exist," he said in an interview. "I've done work on genocide so I'm very sensitive to language that goes too far and begins to create a culture of intolerance and denigration...
"I've long been a critic of negative advertising that in the short term may help you to win elections. But in the long term, the cost to the political process and the esteem politicians and the political process suffer is counterproductive and is one of the factors contributing to low voter turnout, not to mention the sense of fatalism, despair and alienation as people ask 'What can I do?' "
"
Canadian politics should be civil, not civil war
By: Frances Russell 22/01/2009
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/canadian_politics_should_be_civil_not_civil_war38129694.html
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
13 November, 2009
- Con'd Again?!!!
Posted, 11/13/2009 11:01:13 AM (this time I'll see how long it takes the G&M to take the post down)Ottawa Notebook, Disrespecting veterans?, Jane Taber, November 12, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/disrespecting-veterans/article1360873/ Tab 17
I have always tried to figure out the date and time of E-mails and it seems they are always off by a number of hours, even if it took only seconds to receive. Anyone with the explanation please let me know.
However, I am very skeptical if the time difference is exactly one day, what are the chances.
PS. last week my post (see: cicblog.com/comments.html) to Jane Taber's "Ottawa Notebook" was taken down, without explanation of course. I can only thing it was because I was critical of the format and content. With this article my opinion has not changed one iota - I mean, come on, is this article for real.
It couldn't have been taken down because I wrote:
"Reading Taber's article, it is so lopsided and off point, one can only wonder to what extent, given the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials. I would not put this beyond the reach of Harper and the Con's, everything considered, although I would be a bit disappointed and a bit outraged by such 'Actions' by the media. The only thing I can be certain of is, of course, that the truth will not be forthcoming from either the Con's or the media."
Since I posted a similar comment to Joan Bryden's article two days later (and pointing out the trend in articles).
So it must have been my intro "Taber get a new format, this one bites! - or at least something about it bites!"
All I can say is, Ms. Taber, go to . . .
Ignatieff 'quality guy,' Flanagan says, by: Frances Russell, 12/11/2009
winnipegfreepress.com
for real political commentating.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/disrespecting-veterans/article1360873/ Tab 17
I have always tried to figure out the date and time of E-mails and it seems they are always off by a number of hours, even if it took only seconds to receive. Anyone with the explanation please let me know.
However, I am very skeptical if the time difference is exactly one day, what are the chances.
PS. last week my post (see: cicblog.com/comments.html) to Jane Taber's "Ottawa Notebook" was taken down, without explanation of course. I can only thing it was because I was critical of the format and content. With this article my opinion has not changed one iota - I mean, come on, is this article for real.
It couldn't have been taken down because I wrote:
"Reading Taber's article, it is so lopsided and off point, one can only wonder to what extent, given the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials. I would not put this beyond the reach of Harper and the Con's, everything considered, although I would be a bit disappointed and a bit outraged by such 'Actions' by the media. The only thing I can be certain of is, of course, that the truth will not be forthcoming from either the Con's or the media."
Since I posted a similar comment to Joan Bryden's article two days later (and pointing out the trend in articles).
So it must have been my intro "Taber get a new format, this one bites! - or at least something about it bites!"
All I can say is, Ms. Taber, go to . . .
Ignatieff 'quality guy,' Flanagan says, by: Frances Russell, 12/11/2009
winnipegfreepress.com
for real political commentating.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
12 November, 2009
- Jane taber Go To ...
Ignatieff 'quality guy,' Flanagan says, by: Frances Russell, 12/11/2009
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/ignatieff-quality-guy-flanagan-says-69835582.html?commentConfirmed=y#comments
for real political commentating.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
posted to:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/ignatieff-quality-guy-flanagan-says-69835582.html?commentConfirmed=y#comments
for real political commentating.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
posted to:
- Harper and the Con's Attack Ads Is Reason For Low Voter Turnout
Posted to: A bad night for the Liberals, Robert Silver, 10 Nov.'09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/the-big-winner-in-quebec/article1357381/ Tab 6
Please see: Ignatieff 'quality guy,' Flanagan says, by: Frances Russell, 12/11/2009
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/ignatieff-quality-guy-flanagan-says-69835582.html?commentConfirmed=y#comments
"Research done by Angus Reid Strategies showed Conservative attack ads during the 2008 campaign persuaded 11 per cent of Canadians not to vote at all and had the hoped-for effect of depressing non-Conservatives from voting while inspiring the party faithful to go to the polls."
my post: " … I agree with this 200%. The only thing we can get out of the 4 by-elections this week is verification of this - not by 11% but even 20% ..."
excerpt:
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/the-big-winner-in-quebec/article1357381/ Tab 6
Please see: Ignatieff 'quality guy,' Flanagan says, by: Frances Russell, 12/11/2009
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/ignatieff-quality-guy-flanagan-says-69835582.html?commentConfirmed=y#comments
"Research done by Angus Reid Strategies showed Conservative attack ads during the 2008 campaign persuaded 11 per cent of Canadians not to vote at all and had the hoped-for effect of depressing non-Conservatives from voting while inspiring the party faithful to go to the polls."
my post: " … I agree with this 200%. The only thing we can get out of the 4 by-elections this week is verification of this - not by 11% but even 20% ..."
excerpt:
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Tom Flanigan's 'Tell All' about Harper and the Cons - continued
Ignatieff 'quality guy,' Flanagan says, by: Frances Russell, 12/11/2009
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/ignatieff-quality-guy-flanagan-says-69835582.html?commentConfirmed=y#comments
Hi Frances Russell,
This is a great article and a real eye opener:
" Michael Ignatieff to me is a world-famous scholar. I'd like to be a world-famous scholar. I'm not, so Ignatieff to me is a role model... I think he is a quality guy and I think Canada's lucky to have him as Liberal leader
. . .
Asked if he personally agrees with his party's characterization of Ignatieff, he replied: "I don't necessarily think that." But he insisted it was up to Ignatieff to repudiate the "just visiting" claim. And he doesn't know why the Liberals "don't make their own plausible case" against the prime minister. "It wouldn't be hard to write the ads."
. . .
Recently, Flanagan received a lot of media criticism for saying that political attack ads don't have to be true, they just have to be plausible.
During last winter's constitutional crisis, Flanagan wrote in The Globe and Mail that "Gross violations of democratic principles would be involved in handing government to the coalition without getting approval from voters." A week earlier, Harper, too, claimed the opposition could not take power without an election. "
Flanagan now appears to have shifted his position and backed away from Harper's. "I wouldn't rule out parties coming together to form a coalition and whatever Mr. Harper may have said in the heat of the moment I don't think should be interpreted as constitutional theory because he was in a fight for his life." However, he insists any coalition relying on the Bloc Quebecois must have prior electoral approval [apparently Flanigan hasn't totally made the transition from Harper Henchman to academic, I guess old habits die hard]
(IBID - I don't normally quote sections of articles but these are essentially quotes of Tom Flanigan and newsworthy)
For whatever reason Tom Flanigan has been "telling all" for a while now. I always suspected it was some sinister plan to somehow 're-habilitate' Harper and the Con's in the public eye - this is how they used to be but now they have changed, and bring him back to he conservative fold.
But now I think there is a real desire to be accepted as a legitimate academic as opposed to a Harper henchman, which has the effect of requiring him to talk about things in a truthful light as opposed to standard Con approach - everything is political, truth is irrelevant.
Flanagan saying that he doesn't necessarily think the attacks against Ignatieff are true but it is up to Ignatieff to repudiate them is something that should raise the eyebrows of every Canadian. As you [Russell] pointed out is in line with his previous statement that these attacks don't need to be true just plausible.
All Canadians should become aware of this. For Harper and the Con's it is power, grabbing it, clutching onto it, mongering it and Canada be damned.
"Research done by Angus Reid Strategies showed Conservative attack ads during the 2008 campaign persuaded 11 per cent of Canadians not to vote at all and had the hoped-for effect of depressing non-Conservatives from voting while inspiring the party faithful to go to the polls." [IBID]
I agree with this 200%. The only thing we can get out of the 4 by-elections this week is verification of this - not by 11% but even 20% . As I posted (see below):
"If anything, this is a pathetic comment on the government of the day - people are so jaded and cynical about the current Harper and Con's they just don't feel its worth the effort - i.e. Harper and the Con's are still going to be running this country so what's the point."
I think this effect may explain the recent polls (see below):
"Also, perhaps people have resolved themselves to the polarized political landscape which allows Harper and the Con's to form the government - i.e. as things stand now it is not likely to change much with another election and so we should not have another election. People may indicate support for Harper and the Con's when questioned in a poll but what they are really saying is I don't want an election - what's the use."
PS: Jane Taber, If you would like to see some real political commentating ...
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/ignatieff-quality-guy-flanagan-says-69835582.html?commentConfirmed=y#comments
Hi Frances Russell,
This is a great article and a real eye opener:
" Michael Ignatieff to me is a world-famous scholar. I'd like to be a world-famous scholar. I'm not, so Ignatieff to me is a role model... I think he is a quality guy and I think Canada's lucky to have him as Liberal leader
. . .
Asked if he personally agrees with his party's characterization of Ignatieff, he replied: "I don't necessarily think that." But he insisted it was up to Ignatieff to repudiate the "just visiting" claim. And he doesn't know why the Liberals "don't make their own plausible case" against the prime minister. "It wouldn't be hard to write the ads."
. . .
Recently, Flanagan received a lot of media criticism for saying that political attack ads don't have to be true, they just have to be plausible.
During last winter's constitutional crisis, Flanagan wrote in The Globe and Mail that "Gross violations of democratic principles would be involved in handing government to the coalition without getting approval from voters." A week earlier, Harper, too, claimed the opposition could not take power without an election. "
Flanagan now appears to have shifted his position and backed away from Harper's. "I wouldn't rule out parties coming together to form a coalition and whatever Mr. Harper may have said in the heat of the moment I don't think should be interpreted as constitutional theory because he was in a fight for his life." However, he insists any coalition relying on the Bloc Quebecois must have prior electoral approval [apparently Flanigan hasn't totally made the transition from Harper Henchman to academic, I guess old habits die hard]
(IBID - I don't normally quote sections of articles but these are essentially quotes of Tom Flanigan and newsworthy)
For whatever reason Tom Flanigan has been "telling all" for a while now. I always suspected it was some sinister plan to somehow 're-habilitate' Harper and the Con's in the public eye - this is how they used to be but now they have changed, and bring him back to he conservative fold.
But now I think there is a real desire to be accepted as a legitimate academic as opposed to a Harper henchman, which has the effect of requiring him to talk about things in a truthful light as opposed to standard Con approach - everything is political, truth is irrelevant.
Flanagan saying that he doesn't necessarily think the attacks against Ignatieff are true but it is up to Ignatieff to repudiate them is something that should raise the eyebrows of every Canadian. As you [Russell] pointed out is in line with his previous statement that these attacks don't need to be true just plausible.
All Canadians should become aware of this. For Harper and the Con's it is power, grabbing it, clutching onto it, mongering it and Canada be damned.
"Research done by Angus Reid Strategies showed Conservative attack ads during the 2008 campaign persuaded 11 per cent of Canadians not to vote at all and had the hoped-for effect of depressing non-Conservatives from voting while inspiring the party faithful to go to the polls." [IBID]
I agree with this 200%. The only thing we can get out of the 4 by-elections this week is verification of this - not by 11% but even 20% . As I posted (see below):
"If anything, this is a pathetic comment on the government of the day - people are so jaded and cynical about the current Harper and Con's they just don't feel its worth the effort - i.e. Harper and the Con's are still going to be running this country so what's the point."
I think this effect may explain the recent polls (see below):
"Also, perhaps people have resolved themselves to the polarized political landscape which allows Harper and the Con's to form the government - i.e. as things stand now it is not likely to change much with another election and so we should not have another election. People may indicate support for Harper and the Con's when questioned in a poll but what they are really saying is I don't want an election - what's the use."
PS: Jane Taber, If you would like to see some real political commentating ...
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
11 November, 2009
- Lest We Forget - Remembrance Day
To all those who have answered the call of duty my deepest appreciation and respect.
To all those that make that call I pray to God it is done through wisdom with the purpose of achieving peace.
Lloyd MacIlquham
To all those that make that call I pray to God it is done through wisdom with the purpose of achieving peace.
Lloyd MacIlquham
10 November, 2009
- Don't get Con'd on these by-elections - continued
Jack Layton tonight on PowerPlay (CTV) when asked what he could attribute the win in BC explained that it was the HHST issue and a strong candidate.
Exactly in line with my posting yesterday.
Jack Layton without the hyperbola and the claims to be the real Opposition -that's scary.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Exactly in line with my posting yesterday.
Jack Layton without the hyperbola and the claims to be the real Opposition -that's scary.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Don't get Con'd on these by-elections - continued
A bad night for the Liberals, Robert Silver, 10 Nov.'09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/the-big-winner-in-quebec/article1357381/ Tab 6
AvgCanadian wrote: "We couldn't agree with you more regarding the uniqueness of the "by-election".....However.....when you state:
"people are so jaded and cynical about the current Harper and Conservatives"...how do you explain/spin the fact that they are so far ahead in the polls?
Could it be even remotely possible that "people are approving of the job being done in Ottawa?"
To AvgCanadian:
As Winston Churchill said "Polls are for dogs" (I love it when I can use that).
This is a very complex question and something that can hardly be discussed in 2000 characters. One thing is that if one takes a look at the polls going into elections compared to the election results, a significant number of times there is a reversal from high in the polls before the election to losing.
If Harper and the Cons thought they could get a majority they would force and election - this is simply based on past experience. The fact that he doesn't to me indicates that Harper doesn't read too much into these polls either.
Also, perhaps people have resolved themselves to the polarized political landscape which allows Harper and the Con's to form the government - i.e. as things stand now it is not likely to change much with another election and so we should not have another election. People may indicate support for Harper and the Con's when questioned in a poll but what they are really saying is I don't want an election - what's the use. Or, they may become "undecideds" and this can make the poll look like it favours the Con's.
And, something what is very important is the amount of undecideds, which not many of the polling results indicate. The % of hard core Con's compared to the total decideds is going to increase as the % undecideds increases. So, the poll may really just be indicating that there is a large amount of undecideds and hard core Con's are going to vote for Harper and the Con Party no matter what. There are around 33-35% hard core Con's, you do the math.
PS - you said "We", who is the "We"
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/the-big-winner-in-quebec/article1357381/ Tab 6
AvgCanadian wrote: "We couldn't agree with you more regarding the uniqueness of the "by-election".....However.....when you state:
"people are so jaded and cynical about the current Harper and Conservatives"...how do you explain/spin the fact that they are so far ahead in the polls?
Could it be even remotely possible that "people are approving of the job being done in Ottawa?"
To AvgCanadian:
As Winston Churchill said "Polls are for dogs" (I love it when I can use that).
This is a very complex question and something that can hardly be discussed in 2000 characters. One thing is that if one takes a look at the polls going into elections compared to the election results, a significant number of times there is a reversal from high in the polls before the election to losing.
If Harper and the Cons thought they could get a majority they would force and election - this is simply based on past experience. The fact that he doesn't to me indicates that Harper doesn't read too much into these polls either.
Also, perhaps people have resolved themselves to the polarized political landscape which allows Harper and the Con's to form the government - i.e. as things stand now it is not likely to change much with another election and so we should not have another election. People may indicate support for Harper and the Con's when questioned in a poll but what they are really saying is I don't want an election - what's the use. Or, they may become "undecideds" and this can make the poll look like it favours the Con's.
And, something what is very important is the amount of undecideds, which not many of the polling results indicate. The % of hard core Con's compared to the total decideds is going to increase as the % undecideds increases. So, the poll may really just be indicating that there is a large amount of undecideds and hard core Con's are going to vote for Harper and the Con Party no matter what. There are around 33-35% hard core Con's, you do the math.
PS - you said "We", who is the "We"
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Don't get Con'd on these by-elections.
Posted to:
Byelection win will boost Tories in Quebec: MP, November 10, 2009
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2009/11/10/quebec-federal-byelection-tories-bloc.html Tab 5
The big winner in Quebec Norman Spector, November 10, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/the-big-winner-in-quebec/article1357381/ Tab 5
A bad night for the Liberals, Robert Silver, 10 Nov.'09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/the-big-winner-in-quebec/article1357381/ Tab 2
As I discussed yesterday on cicblog.com, in by-elections one of the important things is the % of voters. The voter turnout was: Voter turnout (%): Cumberland NS 36, Hochelaga Q 22, Montmagny Q 37, N West'er BC 29.9. I can't remember anything that consistently low.
If anything, this is a pathetic comment on the government of the day - people are so jaded and cynical about the current Harper and Con's they just don't feel its worth the effort - i.e. Harper and the Con's are still going to be running this country so what's the point.
When there is a low turn out it is safe to assume that it is hard core supporters that vote. It indicates that there is no "issue" in contention, Leadership or otherwise, and those that bother to go out and vote are hard core supporters either for the candidate or the party.
Another important aspect of by-elections that is very different than general elections is that people are more likely to vote the candidate. This accounts for the Con win in Montmagny--L'Islet--Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup, where the Cons ran a very popular candidate locally, he was the former mayor of La Pocatière. We saw this effect in the Outremont by-election of 'Sep. '07, where the NDP won because of the very high local profile of their candidate, compared to the other candidates. Did this foreshadow a break through by the NDP in the next general election, I suggest not.
For anyone who might suggest that this is a huge victory for Harper and the Con's you only need to look at the results for the Con's in the other Quebec by-election (Hochelaga): They got 1,774 votes!(10.1%) , behind the Liberal and in fact the Liberals got a higher % in the riding the Con's won than the Con's got in the ridi8ng that they lost (distant 3rd).
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
Elections Canada Voter Turnout (not including voters who reg on the day)
Cumberland NS 35.7%
Hochelaga Q 22.3%
Montmagny Q 36.6%
N West'er BC 29.9%
****************
Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley Last updated: 22:52 ET
Party Candidate Votes % Votes
Conservative Scott Armstrong 11,167 45.8
NDP-New Democratic Party Mark Austin 6,267 25.7
Green Party Jason Blanch 807 3.3
Liberal Jim Burrows 5,193 21.3
Independent Kate Graves 149 0.6
Christian Heritage Party Jim Hnatiuk 776 3.2
Voter turnout: 24,359 of 68,172 registered electors (35.7%)
Hochelaga Last updated: 00:20 ET
Party Candidate Votes % Votes
neorhino.ca Gabrielle Anctil 128 0.7
Conservative Stéphanie Cloutier 1,774 10.1
Marxist-Leninist Christine Dandenault 79 0.5
Liberal Robert David 2,510 14.3
Green Party Christine Lebel 571 3.3
Bloc Québécois Daniel Paillé 8,972 51.2
NDP-New Democratic Party Jean-Claude Rocheleau 3,421 19.5
Independent John Turmel 71 0.4
Voter turnout: 17,526 of 78,714 registered electors (22.3%)
Montmagny--L'Islet--Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup Last updated: 00:26 ET
Party Candidate Votes % Votes
Liberal Marcel Catellier 3,768 13.2
Bloc Québécois Nancy Gagnon 10,737 37.7
Conservative Bernard Généreux 12,162 42.7
NDP-New Democratic Party François Lapointe 1,363 4.8
Green Party Charles A. Marois 472 1.7
Voter turnout: 28,502 of 77,851 registered electors (36.6%)
New Westminster--Coquitlam Last updated: 01:04 ET
Party Candidate Votes % Votes
Conservative Diana Dilworth 8,753 35.8
NDP-New Democratic Party Fin Donnelly 12,129 49.6
Green Party Rebecca Helps 1,046 4.3
Liberal Ken Beck Lee 2,514 10.3
Voter turnout: 24,442 of 81,805 registered electors (29.9%)
Byelection win will boost Tories in Quebec: MP, November 10, 2009
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2009/11/10/quebec-federal-byelection-tories-bloc.html Tab 5
The big winner in Quebec Norman Spector, November 10, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/the-big-winner-in-quebec/article1357381/ Tab 5
A bad night for the Liberals, Robert Silver, 10 Nov.'09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/the-big-winner-in-quebec/article1357381/ Tab 2
As I discussed yesterday on cicblog.com, in by-elections one of the important things is the % of voters. The voter turnout was: Voter turnout (%): Cumberland NS 36, Hochelaga Q 22, Montmagny Q 37, N West'er BC 29.9. I can't remember anything that consistently low.
If anything, this is a pathetic comment on the government of the day - people are so jaded and cynical about the current Harper and Con's they just don't feel its worth the effort - i.e. Harper and the Con's are still going to be running this country so what's the point.
When there is a low turn out it is safe to assume that it is hard core supporters that vote. It indicates that there is no "issue" in contention, Leadership or otherwise, and those that bother to go out and vote are hard core supporters either for the candidate or the party.
Another important aspect of by-elections that is very different than general elections is that people are more likely to vote the candidate. This accounts for the Con win in Montmagny--L'Islet--Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup, where the Cons ran a very popular candidate locally, he was the former mayor of La Pocatière. We saw this effect in the Outremont by-election of 'Sep. '07, where the NDP won because of the very high local profile of their candidate, compared to the other candidates. Did this foreshadow a break through by the NDP in the next general election, I suggest not.
For anyone who might suggest that this is a huge victory for Harper and the Con's you only need to look at the results for the Con's in the other Quebec by-election (Hochelaga): They got 1,774 votes!(10.1%) , behind the Liberal and in fact the Liberals got a higher % in the riding the Con's won than the Con's got in the ridi8ng that they lost (distant 3rd).
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
Elections Canada Voter Turnout (not including voters who reg on the day)
Cumberland NS 35.7%
Hochelaga Q 22.3%
Montmagny Q 36.6%
N West'er BC 29.9%
****************
Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley Last updated: 22:52 ET
Party Candidate Votes % Votes
Conservative Scott Armstrong 11,167 45.8
NDP-New Democratic Party Mark Austin 6,267 25.7
Green Party Jason Blanch 807 3.3
Liberal Jim Burrows 5,193 21.3
Independent Kate Graves 149 0.6
Christian Heritage Party Jim Hnatiuk 776 3.2
Voter turnout: 24,359 of 68,172 registered electors (35.7%)
Hochelaga Last updated: 00:20 ET
Party Candidate Votes % Votes
neorhino.ca Gabrielle Anctil 128 0.7
Conservative Stéphanie Cloutier 1,774 10.1
Marxist-Leninist Christine Dandenault 79 0.5
Liberal Robert David 2,510 14.3
Green Party Christine Lebel 571 3.3
Bloc Québécois Daniel Paillé 8,972 51.2
NDP-New Democratic Party Jean-Claude Rocheleau 3,421 19.5
Independent John Turmel 71 0.4
Voter turnout: 17,526 of 78,714 registered electors (22.3%)
Montmagny--L'Islet--Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup Last updated: 00:26 ET
Party Candidate Votes % Votes
Liberal Marcel Catellier 3,768 13.2
Bloc Québécois Nancy Gagnon 10,737 37.7
Conservative Bernard Généreux 12,162 42.7
NDP-New Democratic Party François Lapointe 1,363 4.8
Green Party Charles A. Marois 472 1.7
Voter turnout: 28,502 of 77,851 registered electors (36.6%)
New Westminster--Coquitlam Last updated: 01:04 ET
Party Candidate Votes % Votes
Conservative Diana Dilworth 8,753 35.8
NDP-New Democratic Party Fin Donnelly 12,129 49.6
Green Party Rebecca Helps 1,046 4.3
Liberal Ken Beck Lee 2,514 10.3
Voter turnout: 24,442 of 81,805 registered electors (29.9%)
09 November, 2009
- Is Harper's Fraudian Slip Showing, Again
Harper today explained that it is
"Profoundly evil to seek to resolve political differences through the destruction of the other side" [sic]
I wish I had said that!
Wow, finally judgment passed on the Jim Flaherty economic update of last 27 Nov.'08 where Harper and the Con's sought to destroy the Liberal Party through the eliminate the public subsidies.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com./comments.html
"Profoundly evil to seek to resolve political differences through the destruction of the other side" [sic]
I wish I had said that!
Wow, finally judgment passed on the Jim Flaherty economic update of last 27 Nov.'08 where Harper and the Con's sought to destroy the Liberal Party through the eliminate the public subsidies.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com./comments.html
- Con'd again
Tories position by-elections as test of Ignatieff, Joan Bryden, Nov. 08, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-position-by-elections-as-test-of-ignatieff/article1355790/Tab 22
Oh, by the way, did I mention ...
It is also very interesting that these self-proclaimed "political commentators" are only now, the day of voting when the trends are already established and known, suggesting that it is a reflection of Liberal Leadership.
The only thing you can be certain about with these Con "pundits" is that if the indications were that the Liberals were doing well you can be sure they wouldn't suggesting it is a negative reflection on Harper's leadership.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-position-by-elections-as-test-of-ignatieff/article1355790/Tab 22
Oh, by the way, did I mention ...
It is also very interesting that these self-proclaimed "political commentators" are only now, the day of voting when the trends are already established and known, suggesting that it is a reflection of Liberal Leadership.
The only thing you can be certain about with these Con "pundits" is that if the indications were that the Liberals were doing well you can be sure they wouldn't suggesting it is a negative reflection on Harper's leadership.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
- Missing Posting's: My Jane Taber Comment on 6 Nov - G&M - removed???
Jane Taber's article,Follow the leader? Not these Liberals, Jane Taber, November 6, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/follow-the-leader-not-these-liberals/article1354792/
Wow,
It seems Globe and Mail took my post off - it was there at Tab 8???. I guess I will have to take out a Con Party membership.
You can read my post at:
cicblog.com/comments.html
If the Globe and Mail and Jane Taber are so concerned about what I wrote, they could simply explain why. If they are right (morally and not politically) and I am wrong, then I would be more than pleased to retract it.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/follow-the-leader-not-these-liberals/article1354792/
Wow,
It seems Globe and Mail took my post off - it was there at Tab 8???. I guess I will have to take out a Con Party membership.
You can read my post at:
cicblog.com/comments.html
If the Globe and Mail and Jane Taber are so concerned about what I wrote, they could simply explain why. If they are right (morally and not politically) and I am wrong, then I would be more than pleased to retract it.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
- Globe and Mail - Get Someone who Knows Canadian Politics
Tories position by-elections as test of Ignatieff, Joan Bryden, Nov. 08, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-position-by-elections-as-test-of-ignatieff/article1355790/Tab 19 & 20
Sorry, which in by-elections (see results for 14 Oct.'08, below) were the Liberals supposed to be close, the one where they got 8.45% of the votes (I feel sorry for the candidate - no rebates). Or is it the one where they got 11.29%. Maybe it is in Quebec where the best they did was 20%.
The only thing the article is demonstrating is the bias of the Globe and Mail and the lack of experience in Canadian politics of the reporter.
The big factor in these by-elections is the % of voters. If there is a big turnout then it indicates there is an issue that the voters feel strongly about right now. In by-elections there is a very great trend to vote local issues and candidates as opposed to Parties and Leaders - a trend that has been establish over many, many years and which all those who pay attention to Canadian politics ought to know, but which this reporter fails to discuss at all - you be the judge.
If there is a small turn out then you can expect that only the hard core supporters of each party to turn out. This says nothing about Leaders, Leadership or party fortunes generally. If there is a large turn out then there is probably some local issue (and how the economic downturn is affecting people in the riding can be such), again, this says nothing about Leaders, Leadership or party fortunes generally.
I can't imagine anyone approaching Harper or any of the Con's to get an objective comment on the meaning of the results of these by-elections, or anything else, as we are all too familiar.
It is also very interesting that these self-proclaimed "political commentators" are only now, the day of voting when the trends are already established and known, suggesting that it is a reflection of Liberal Leadership. The only thing you can be certain about with these "pundits" is that if the indications were that the Liberals were doing well you can be sure they wouldn't suggesting it is a negative reflection on Harper's leadership.
The Con's are not the Tories.
The Tories had a long history of participating in the building of a great nation, Canada, and could hold their heads up with pride. Harper and the Con's have no such history and are tearing it down.
Harper's only concern is power, grasping it and holding on to it, Canada be damned.
Also, I can't imagine anybody pointing to how Harper and the Con's conduct their affairs with pride. Their place in Canadian history will be quite the contrary.
One thing that the Con's and the Tories have in common is using taxpayer's money to buy votes. If I recall Brian Mulroney was a master at it, however much more sophisticated and subtle.
Will the voters in this by-election see through this? This is a good opportunity to see. In by-elections the voting is not so much for the leader or the party but more based on the candidates and the issues. On the other hand, these ridings are considered to maintain the status quo (the NS riding going Con). So, by comparing the last election result with the upcoming one may give some insight into this.
Also, hopefully the other candidates are exposing the Con's for what they are.
Reading Joan Bryden's article, it is so lopsided and off point, one can only wonder to what extent, given the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials. I would not put this beyond the reach of Harper and the Con's, everything considered, although I would be a bit disappointed and a bit outraged by such 'Actions' by the media. The only thing I can be certain of is, of course, that the truth will not be forthcoming from either the Con's or the media.
Jane Taber's article,Follow the leader? Not these Liberals, Jane Taber, November 6, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/follow-the-leader-not-these-liberals/article1354792/
had the same theme - hummmm, I wonder if it is simply a co-incidence.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
The following is a table for the results from the last election for the four ridings.
Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley (Nova Scotia)
14 Oct.'08
Con Ind/ NDP Lib Rej Votes Possible Votes
Totals 3493 27303 4874 3344 39765 68831
% 8.82 69.00 12.31 8.45 57.8
Hochelaga (Quebec)
14 Oct.08
Con Block NDP Lib INd Rej Votes Possible Votes
T/Totaux 4201 22720 6600 9442 46327 79542
% 9.19 49.75 14.44 20.66 58.2
Montmagny-L'Islet-Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup (Quebec)
14 Oct.08
Con Block NDP Lib INd Rej Votes Possible Votes
T/Totaux 13640 20494 2428 6835 45 057 78 377
% 30.63 46.03 5.45 15.35 57.5
New Westminster–Coquitlam (British Columbia)
14 Oct.08
Con Green NDP Lib INd Rej Votes Possible Votes
T/Totaux 19299 3574 20787 5615 49857 80755
% 38.83 7.19 41.83 11.29 61.7
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-position-by-elections-as-test-of-ignatieff/article1355790/Tab 19 & 20
Sorry, which in by-elections (see results for 14 Oct.'08, below) were the Liberals supposed to be close, the one where they got 8.45% of the votes (I feel sorry for the candidate - no rebates). Or is it the one where they got 11.29%. Maybe it is in Quebec where the best they did was 20%.
The only thing the article is demonstrating is the bias of the Globe and Mail and the lack of experience in Canadian politics of the reporter.
The big factor in these by-elections is the % of voters. If there is a big turnout then it indicates there is an issue that the voters feel strongly about right now. In by-elections there is a very great trend to vote local issues and candidates as opposed to Parties and Leaders - a trend that has been establish over many, many years and which all those who pay attention to Canadian politics ought to know, but which this reporter fails to discuss at all - you be the judge.
If there is a small turn out then you can expect that only the hard core supporters of each party to turn out. This says nothing about Leaders, Leadership or party fortunes generally. If there is a large turn out then there is probably some local issue (and how the economic downturn is affecting people in the riding can be such), again, this says nothing about Leaders, Leadership or party fortunes generally.
I can't imagine anyone approaching Harper or any of the Con's to get an objective comment on the meaning of the results of these by-elections, or anything else, as we are all too familiar.
It is also very interesting that these self-proclaimed "political commentators" are only now, the day of voting when the trends are already established and known, suggesting that it is a reflection of Liberal Leadership. The only thing you can be certain about with these "pundits" is that if the indications were that the Liberals were doing well you can be sure they wouldn't suggesting it is a negative reflection on Harper's leadership.
The Con's are not the Tories.
The Tories had a long history of participating in the building of a great nation, Canada, and could hold their heads up with pride. Harper and the Con's have no such history and are tearing it down.
Harper's only concern is power, grasping it and holding on to it, Canada be damned.
Also, I can't imagine anybody pointing to how Harper and the Con's conduct their affairs with pride. Their place in Canadian history will be quite the contrary.
One thing that the Con's and the Tories have in common is using taxpayer's money to buy votes. If I recall Brian Mulroney was a master at it, however much more sophisticated and subtle.
Will the voters in this by-election see through this? This is a good opportunity to see. In by-elections the voting is not so much for the leader or the party but more based on the candidates and the issues. On the other hand, these ridings are considered to maintain the status quo (the NS riding going Con). So, by comparing the last election result with the upcoming one may give some insight into this.
Also, hopefully the other candidates are exposing the Con's for what they are.
Reading Joan Bryden's article, it is so lopsided and off point, one can only wonder to what extent, given the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials. I would not put this beyond the reach of Harper and the Con's, everything considered, although I would be a bit disappointed and a bit outraged by such 'Actions' by the media. The only thing I can be certain of is, of course, that the truth will not be forthcoming from either the Con's or the media.
Jane Taber's article,Follow the leader? Not these Liberals, Jane Taber, November 6, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/follow-the-leader-not-these-liberals/article1354792/
had the same theme - hummmm, I wonder if it is simply a co-incidence.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
The following is a table for the results from the last election for the four ridings.
Cumberland–Colchester–Musquodoboit Valley (Nova Scotia)
14 Oct.'08
Con Ind/ NDP Lib Rej Votes Possible Votes
Totals 3493 27303 4874 3344 39765 68831
% 8.82 69.00 12.31 8.45 57.8
Hochelaga (Quebec)
14 Oct.08
Con Block NDP Lib INd Rej Votes Possible Votes
T/Totaux 4201 22720 6600 9442 46327 79542
% 9.19 49.75 14.44 20.66 58.2
Montmagny-L'Islet-Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup (Quebec)
14 Oct.08
Con Block NDP Lib INd Rej Votes Possible Votes
T/Totaux 13640 20494 2428 6835 45 057 78 377
% 30.63 46.03 5.45 15.35 57.5
New Westminster–Coquitlam (British Columbia)
14 Oct.08
Con Green NDP Lib INd Rej Votes Possible Votes
T/Totaux 19299 3574 20787 5615 49857 80755
% 38.83 7.19 41.83 11.29 61.7
07 November, 2009
- 'Action': Harper and Con spending on media tied to media that publish pro-Con materials - need to know.
11/9/2009 2:20:20 PM
Wow,
It seems Globa and Mail took my post off - it was there at Tab 8. I guess I will have to take out a Con Party membership.
You can read my post at:
cicblog.com/comments.html
Lloyd MacIlquham
*************************************
Follow the leader? Not these Liberals
Jane Taber, November 6, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/follow-the-leader-not-these-liberals/article1354792/Tab 8
Taber get a new format, this one bites! - or at least something about it bites!
Harper politicizes everything in the traditional Machiavelian fashion. To suggest that the Liberals are politicizing the H1N1 emergency is, obviously and in the most cynical of 'Actions', politicizing the issue. The H1N1 epidemic is extremely important and it is Harper's and Aglukkaq's responsibility, despite them blaming everyone else under the Sun and refusing to take any responsibility - now Harper's shtik is that they have shipped out more vaccine than the Provinces can handle. The only thing that is surprising about this is that the Provinces aren't speaking up and telling Harper where he can 'shtik it'.
If Harper were to stand up and take responsibility for how the H1N1 epidemic is being handled, perhaps the Official Opposition would not have to "hold their feet to the fire" to such a degree. I can imagine that Con's would be upset about Rossi's labeling of the Harper and the Con's Actions on swine flu and party patronage, saying “pork before swine.” All the Con's, Harper included, should all be very embarrassed, shamefaced. Harper and the Con's have been focusing all their energy, and our tax dollars, on 'educating' Canadians, not on the Shine flu, but that they personally are the source of the Stimulus spending, and Canada be damned.
Harper and the Cons feels that they have such an effective propaganda machine established and operating so smoothly, that they can do this 'with impunity' and then simply turn it on and paint anyone who stands up and points out what they are doing as the villain. Harper and the Cons have developed and implemented the biggest propaganda machine experienced in Western democracy in recent history. All I can say is God save Canada.
From Taber's article it seems clear that Sakamoto was approached for his comments and approached as an individual, and did not seek the interviewer out and pretend to be an individual. Sakamoto is entitled to voice his opinion and to have it heard as much as any other person in Canada. Hell, even Mike Duffy is.
With the Harper track record of obscuring, obstructing, hiding the truth, suppressing the facts why isn't, as one Commenter has pointed out, Taber talking about the firearms commissioner's report on the gun registry suppression by Van Loan before the vote on the gun registry. Given Harper and the Con's track record on suppressing information this should have been a top priority, certainly well above what Taber thinks is vital information such as "Ian Davey, a close friend and adviser to Mr. Ignatieff, is on a beach in Florida with his girlfriend, Jill Fairbrother" - sounds more like gossip mongering than informative reporting.
As far as voting on the Gun Registry. Nothing can be read from 8 Liberals voting to have long guns taken out. Nor can anything, legitimately, be taken from Ignatieff encouraging his caucus to vote together against it. This is a free vote and it is not to get rid of the Gun Registry, but only a part. In '04 I ran as a Liberal candidate and one of my "local platform planks" was to have the Gun Registry reviewed with a purpose of distinguishing between the urban centres and rural areas in a like fashion. No one in the Liberal Party ever suggested that I might be 'breaking ranks' and indeed, the impression I had was that voicing my views was supported. If I were an MP now I would likely vote for the Bill, and like to think I would have introduced one myself, and at no time consider it as 'breaking ranks' or somehow being unfaithful to the Party leader, whomever it may be. The Liberal party is dedicated to open, transparent discussion of ideas. It is Harper that suppresses Con MPs, and Ministers even. The Canadian political landscape would be a very barren, hostile, hollow place if all Canadian expected all political parties to act the same way Harper and the Cons do. And, fortunately, despite and insinuations by Taber, we're not there yet.
Reading Taber's article, it is so lopsided and off point, one can only wonder to what extent, given the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials. I would not put this beyond the reach of Harper and the Con's, everything considered, although I would be a bit disappointed and a bit outraged by such 'Actions' by the media. The only thing I can be certain of is, of course, that the truth will not be forthcoming from either the Con's or the media.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
Wow,
It seems Globa and Mail took my post off - it was there at Tab 8. I guess I will have to take out a Con Party membership.
You can read my post at:
cicblog.com/comments.html
Lloyd MacIlquham
*************************************
Follow the leader? Not these Liberals
Jane Taber, November 6, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/follow-the-leader-not-these-liberals/article1354792/Tab 8
Taber get a new format, this one bites! - or at least something about it bites!
Harper politicizes everything in the traditional Machiavelian fashion. To suggest that the Liberals are politicizing the H1N1 emergency is, obviously and in the most cynical of 'Actions', politicizing the issue. The H1N1 epidemic is extremely important and it is Harper's and Aglukkaq's responsibility, despite them blaming everyone else under the Sun and refusing to take any responsibility - now Harper's shtik is that they have shipped out more vaccine than the Provinces can handle. The only thing that is surprising about this is that the Provinces aren't speaking up and telling Harper where he can 'shtik it'.
If Harper were to stand up and take responsibility for how the H1N1 epidemic is being handled, perhaps the Official Opposition would not have to "hold their feet to the fire" to such a degree. I can imagine that Con's would be upset about Rossi's labeling of the Harper and the Con's Actions on swine flu and party patronage, saying “pork before swine.” All the Con's, Harper included, should all be very embarrassed, shamefaced. Harper and the Con's have been focusing all their energy, and our tax dollars, on 'educating' Canadians, not on the Shine flu, but that they personally are the source of the Stimulus spending, and Canada be damned.
Harper and the Cons feels that they have such an effective propaganda machine established and operating so smoothly, that they can do this 'with impunity' and then simply turn it on and paint anyone who stands up and points out what they are doing as the villain. Harper and the Cons have developed and implemented the biggest propaganda machine experienced in Western democracy in recent history. All I can say is God save Canada.
From Taber's article it seems clear that Sakamoto was approached for his comments and approached as an individual, and did not seek the interviewer out and pretend to be an individual. Sakamoto is entitled to voice his opinion and to have it heard as much as any other person in Canada. Hell, even Mike Duffy is.
With the Harper track record of obscuring, obstructing, hiding the truth, suppressing the facts why isn't, as one Commenter has pointed out, Taber talking about the firearms commissioner's report on the gun registry suppression by Van Loan before the vote on the gun registry. Given Harper and the Con's track record on suppressing information this should have been a top priority, certainly well above what Taber thinks is vital information such as "Ian Davey, a close friend and adviser to Mr. Ignatieff, is on a beach in Florida with his girlfriend, Jill Fairbrother" - sounds more like gossip mongering than informative reporting.
As far as voting on the Gun Registry. Nothing can be read from 8 Liberals voting to have long guns taken out. Nor can anything, legitimately, be taken from Ignatieff encouraging his caucus to vote together against it. This is a free vote and it is not to get rid of the Gun Registry, but only a part. In '04 I ran as a Liberal candidate and one of my "local platform planks" was to have the Gun Registry reviewed with a purpose of distinguishing between the urban centres and rural areas in a like fashion. No one in the Liberal Party ever suggested that I might be 'breaking ranks' and indeed, the impression I had was that voicing my views was supported. If I were an MP now I would likely vote for the Bill, and like to think I would have introduced one myself, and at no time consider it as 'breaking ranks' or somehow being unfaithful to the Party leader, whomever it may be. The Liberal party is dedicated to open, transparent discussion of ideas. It is Harper that suppresses Con MPs, and Ministers even. The Canadian political landscape would be a very barren, hostile, hollow place if all Canadian expected all political parties to act the same way Harper and the Cons do. And, fortunately, despite and insinuations by Taber, we're not there yet.
Reading Taber's article, it is so lopsided and off point, one can only wonder to what extent, given the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials. I would not put this beyond the reach of Harper and the Con's, everything considered, although I would be a bit disappointed and a bit outraged by such 'Actions' by the media. The only thing I can be certain of is, of course, that the truth will not be forthcoming from either the Con's or the media.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
06 November, 2009
- Let's All Get Tough on Con's - Give the Harper Gang the Boot!
Posted to:
In the next election, it's flu versus crime, Rick Salutin, Nov. 06, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/in-the-next-election-its-flu-versus-crime/article1352927/
Tab 4
Harper and the Con's "Tough on Crime" is no more than an emotional appeal to the Con's right wing voter base. Harper's approach is deliberately devoid of logic, rationality and fact based policy development. That is why the Harper approach is to lengthen the jail terms of offenders rather than do something that will actually reduce crime - a G.W. Bush agenda, manifestly demonstrated to be a complete disaster. The disaster Bush made of the US is a prime example of just how much damage can be done when the wrong person is leading the country, something every Canadian ought to think seriously about in the next election.
As it turns out Harper and the Con's have nothing to support their position to say that it is in the best interest of all Canadians. In fact, all the evidence points to the exact opposite. This is illustrated by the Report released by Graham Stewart, Prof Michael Jackson, et al, in late September, "A Flawed Compass".
The response by the Con’s: “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan (to CBC).
In other words, Harper and the Cons are totally disregarding the facts and basing their position on shear Ideology, extreme right wing at that.
That is, they are not basing it on what is best for Canadians, but on irrational fear mongering and self-righteous hypocrisy, dragging us back to the Dark Ages with hints of the Inquisition, and Canada be Damned. Is burning at the stake "cruel and unusual" for witches???
Harper and the Con's 'agenda' is no more than a hodgepodge of 'one-off's' that do not actually 'get tough' on anything but the tax-payers pocketbooks. It is interesting that they refer to it as an 'agenda' and not a 'policy' - it's so revealing of Harper's underlying approach - it's so Fraudian, it's spooky.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
In the next election, it's flu versus crime, Rick Salutin, Nov. 06, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/in-the-next-election-its-flu-versus-crime/article1352927/
Tab 4
Harper and the Con's "Tough on Crime" is no more than an emotional appeal to the Con's right wing voter base. Harper's approach is deliberately devoid of logic, rationality and fact based policy development. That is why the Harper approach is to lengthen the jail terms of offenders rather than do something that will actually reduce crime - a G.W. Bush agenda, manifestly demonstrated to be a complete disaster. The disaster Bush made of the US is a prime example of just how much damage can be done when the wrong person is leading the country, something every Canadian ought to think seriously about in the next election.
As it turns out Harper and the Con's have nothing to support their position to say that it is in the best interest of all Canadians. In fact, all the evidence points to the exact opposite. This is illustrated by the Report released by Graham Stewart, Prof Michael Jackson, et al, in late September, "A Flawed Compass".
The response by the Con’s: “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan (to CBC).
In other words, Harper and the Cons are totally disregarding the facts and basing their position on shear Ideology, extreme right wing at that.
That is, they are not basing it on what is best for Canadians, but on irrational fear mongering and self-righteous hypocrisy, dragging us back to the Dark Ages with hints of the Inquisition, and Canada be Damned. Is burning at the stake "cruel and unusual" for witches???
Harper and the Con's 'agenda' is no more than a hodgepodge of 'one-off's' that do not actually 'get tough' on anything but the tax-payers pocketbooks. It is interesting that they refer to it as an 'agenda' and not a 'policy' - it's so revealing of Harper's underlying approach - it's so Fraudian, it's spooky.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
05 November, 2009
- When are we going to Roll out the Harper Debunking Vaccine
Posted to:http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/04/notes-on-a-non-crisis/#idc-ctools> Notes on a non-crisis, by Andrew Coyne on Wednesday, November 4, 2009 Tab 3
Part 1:
"- There is no emergency. The current flu outbreak kills at a fraction of the rate of regular, seasonal flu, which hardly anyone worries about. "
This is a complete misrepresentation, to the extent that one can only wonder if it is deliberately intended. It is the number of deaths that must be looked at and not the rate. If the number of people who get H1N1 is ten times more than the regular flu then a mortality rate of 50% means 5 times more deaths. This is a nation wide EPIDEMIC and in fact has been declared by the World Health Organization as a PANDEMIC. Therefore we can expect that many times more people will contract N1H1 than "normal" - that's why they cal it an EPIDEMIC and not 'the seasonal flu'.
For a timeline of the H1N1 PANDEMIC:http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/031109_h1n1e.pdf
Part 2:
It is also a very sinister form of the flu in that generally the population in Canada has virtually no resistance to it (although they will), in fact it is reported that, essentially only those over 50 have built up a prior resistance. It has also been well documented to attack otherwise health individuals, and in particular our youth. In fact, children 5 and under have been identified as being a high risk group.
For a timeline of the H1N1 PANDEMIC:http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/031109_h1n1e.pdf
Part 3:
To suggest that it is the Liberals fault for contracting the supply of seasonal flu vaccine from one supplier in 2001 is, again, misleading. As pointed out, this is a 2009-2010 EPIDEMIC and not the seasonal flu. Our government has had many months (since it appeared in Mexico with its alarming number of deaths) and there has been a huge publicity campaign by the UN to alert the governments of all countries and their citizens. This cannot be an excuse, nor should we allow it as one.
Harper is the Prime Minster of Canada. This is a Canada wide epidemic. Instead of focusing all his and the Co's efforts and our tax dollars in Con'ing Canadians to identify the stimulus spending with Harper and the Cons and Canada be damned, Harper, Aglukkaq and the other Con's ought to have been focusing on the H1N1 epidemic and the distribution of the vaccine. Harper has spent scores of millions (100 millions dollars) in Con'ing us, can you imagine how smoothly and quickly the distribution of the H1N1 vaccine would have been if they had spent that money (and there is supposed to be 400 millions available for these purposes) and energy on this national medical emergency.
For a timeline of the H1N1 PANDEMIC:http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/031109_h1n1e.pdf
Lloyd Maclquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Part 3A:
"no worse than garden variety government bungling". To suggest that the way Harper, Aglukkaq and the other Con's are handling this emergency is acceptable because the government bungles everything else is bazaar.
I only wish that the Fed's in combination with the Provinces and Municipalities would handle collecting taxes in the same fashion as Harper, Aglukkaq and the other Con's have been handling the H1N1 epidemic. Then, I'm sure, there would be a lot of very happy Canadians. Also, as mentioned this is not "garden variety" circumstances. This is a very serious EPIDEMIC that has a very serious mortality rate - i.e a national medical emergency - the need to collect taxes is not a national emergency, at least in my list of priorities, this is.
It is fascinating to listen to Harper and the Con's explain, still once again, that it is not their fault. To listen to Harper, it is never his fault, it is always someone else's (one would think, just on the probabilities that something would be his fault, after all, no one is perfect)
Part 4:
Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada, this is a Canada-wide epidemic, Harper should stand up, show some backbone, oh, sorry, leadership, and take responsibility. Instead, Harper, Aglukkaq and the other Con's are pointing to everyone else under the sun and say it's their fault.
The biggest shame is how Harper, Aglukkaq and the other Con's point to other countries and say, look we are doing better than them. Two things, for a family of someone in Canada who dies from H1N1 when it might have been prevented, it is very little solace to point to some other country and say, well for every one that dies here, two die there. Also, as my pappy used to say: "if Joe Blow down the street is incredibly negligent in his actions and it leads to scores of people dying, does that mean you should be incredibly negligent".
Part 5:
The media also has a responsibility ("social contract") not to re-enforce this "its not my fault" approach to national emergencies by Harper, Aglukkaq and the other Con's. I understand that they want to sell paper's and ... However, my consolance (apparently this is not a word???) is that soon enough the "traditional media" will go the way of the dinosaur and we will be given an opportunity to establish an 'Public Awareness Institution' that is not so self-interested, biased and focused on promoting their own agenda at the expense of all Canadians and this great nation of ours. Unfortunately it will be too late for this crisis.
For a timeline of the H1N1 PANDEMIC:http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/031109_h1n1e.pdf
Lloyd Maclquham cicblog.com/comments.html
PS: why in the world would the host only allow so few words per post then suggest that, if too lon, to break it up into parts???
Part 6:
Just one last thing . . .
When are we going to Roll out the Harper Debunking Vaccine!
Part 1:
"- There is no emergency. The current flu outbreak kills at a fraction of the rate of regular, seasonal flu, which hardly anyone worries about. "
This is a complete misrepresentation, to the extent that one can only wonder if it is deliberately intended. It is the number of deaths that must be looked at and not the rate. If the number of people who get H1N1 is ten times more than the regular flu then a mortality rate of 50% means 5 times more deaths. This is a nation wide EPIDEMIC and in fact has been declared by the World Health Organization as a PANDEMIC. Therefore we can expect that many times more people will contract N1H1 than "normal" - that's why they cal it an EPIDEMIC and not 'the seasonal flu'.
For a timeline of the H1N1 PANDEMIC:http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/031109_h1n1e.pdf
Part 2:
It is also a very sinister form of the flu in that generally the population in Canada has virtually no resistance to it (although they will), in fact it is reported that, essentially only those over 50 have built up a prior resistance. It has also been well documented to attack otherwise health individuals, and in particular our youth. In fact, children 5 and under have been identified as being a high risk group.
For a timeline of the H1N1 PANDEMIC:http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/031109_h1n1e.pdf
Part 3:
To suggest that it is the Liberals fault for contracting the supply of seasonal flu vaccine from one supplier in 2001 is, again, misleading. As pointed out, this is a 2009-2010 EPIDEMIC and not the seasonal flu. Our government has had many months (since it appeared in Mexico with its alarming number of deaths) and there has been a huge publicity campaign by the UN to alert the governments of all countries and their citizens. This cannot be an excuse, nor should we allow it as one.
Harper is the Prime Minster of Canada. This is a Canada wide epidemic. Instead of focusing all his and the Co's efforts and our tax dollars in Con'ing Canadians to identify the stimulus spending with Harper and the Cons and Canada be damned, Harper, Aglukkaq and the other Con's ought to have been focusing on the H1N1 epidemic and the distribution of the vaccine. Harper has spent scores of millions (100 millions dollars) in Con'ing us, can you imagine how smoothly and quickly the distribution of the H1N1 vaccine would have been if they had spent that money (and there is supposed to be 400 millions available for these purposes) and energy on this national medical emergency.
For a timeline of the H1N1 PANDEMIC:http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/031109_h1n1e.pdf
Lloyd Maclquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Part 3A:
"no worse than garden variety government bungling". To suggest that the way Harper, Aglukkaq and the other Con's are handling this emergency is acceptable because the government bungles everything else is bazaar.
I only wish that the Fed's in combination with the Provinces and Municipalities would handle collecting taxes in the same fashion as Harper, Aglukkaq and the other Con's have been handling the H1N1 epidemic. Then, I'm sure, there would be a lot of very happy Canadians. Also, as mentioned this is not "garden variety" circumstances. This is a very serious EPIDEMIC that has a very serious mortality rate - i.e a national medical emergency - the need to collect taxes is not a national emergency, at least in my list of priorities, this is.
It is fascinating to listen to Harper and the Con's explain, still once again, that it is not their fault. To listen to Harper, it is never his fault, it is always someone else's (one would think, just on the probabilities that something would be his fault, after all, no one is perfect)
Part 4:
Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada, this is a Canada-wide epidemic, Harper should stand up, show some backbone, oh, sorry, leadership, and take responsibility. Instead, Harper, Aglukkaq and the other Con's are pointing to everyone else under the sun and say it's their fault.
The biggest shame is how Harper, Aglukkaq and the other Con's point to other countries and say, look we are doing better than them. Two things, for a family of someone in Canada who dies from H1N1 when it might have been prevented, it is very little solace to point to some other country and say, well for every one that dies here, two die there. Also, as my pappy used to say: "if Joe Blow down the street is incredibly negligent in his actions and it leads to scores of people dying, does that mean you should be incredibly negligent".
Part 5:
The media also has a responsibility ("social contract") not to re-enforce this "its not my fault" approach to national emergencies by Harper, Aglukkaq and the other Con's. I understand that they want to sell paper's and ... However, my consolance (apparently this is not a word???) is that soon enough the "traditional media" will go the way of the dinosaur and we will be given an opportunity to establish an 'Public Awareness Institution' that is not so self-interested, biased and focused on promoting their own agenda at the expense of all Canadians and this great nation of ours. Unfortunately it will be too late for this crisis.
For a timeline of the H1N1 PANDEMIC:http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/031109_h1n1e.pdf
Lloyd Maclquham cicblog.com/comments.html
PS: why in the world would the host only allow so few words per post then suggest that, if too lon, to break it up into parts???
Part 6:
Just one last thing . . .
When are we going to Roll out the Harper Debunking Vaccine!
03 November, 2009
- Harper should stand up, show some leadership, and take responsibility.
Don Martin: Vaccine claims don't add up, November 02, 2009
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/02/don-martin-vaccine-claims-don-t-add-up.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage
20 comments
It's fascinating to listen to Harper and the Con's explain, still once again, that it is not their fault. To listen to Harper, it is never his fault, it is always someone else's (one would think, just on the probabilities that something would be his fault, after all, no one is perfect)
On the other hand, Harper has no reservation about goes for months spending 10's of millions of our dollars 'educating' the public in order to take credit for the stimulus spending.
Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada, this is a Canada-wide epidemic, Harper should stand up, show some backbone, oh, sorry, leadership, and take responsibility. Instead, Harper, Aglukkaq and the other Con's are pointing to everyone else under the sun and say it's their fault.
The biggest shame is how Harper, Aglukkaq and the other Con's point to other countries and say, look we are doing better than them. Two things, for a family of someone in Canada who dies from H1N1 when it might have been prevented, it is very little solace to point to some other country and say, well for every one that dies here, two die there. Also, as my pappy used to say: "if Joe Blow down the street is incredibly negligent in his actions and it leads to scores of people dying, does that mean you should be incredibly negligent".
As pointed out by Don Martin, "Something doesn't add up". I have not heard a real explanation from Harper and the Cons as to why there is so much less vaccine available now that what they were saying a week ago. And this is important. Considering that rumors are that they shipping these 'missing millions' of doses to the US, including for use in their military in Afghanistan, one would think they would be quick to clarify the matter - even Harper wouldn't do that, would he???
Up until a week ago Harper, Aglukkaq and the other Con's were telling us everything is ok and there is enough H1N1 flu vaccine. They suggest that since the contract that makes GlaxoSmithKline the sole-source producer has been in place for years that they have prepared properly.
All of a sudden when the results of their so called preparations and made manifest, there is a huge problem and there is not as much vaccine, by a long shot. No body seems to be able to account for much of the doses that were shipped out. Also, Harper and Aglukkaq blame GlaxoSmithKline for the short-fall and hide behind Dr. David Butler-Jones, Canada's chief public health officer, saying they were just following his advise. Harper and Aglukkaq also blame it on GlaxoSmithKline being the sole provider.
What Harper and Aglukkaq aren't telling us is, that although GlaxoSmithKline is our sole provider for the H1N1 vaccine, are we their sole customer. This, obviously, is vital information. Since, it may be that GlaxoSmithKline is providing the same vaccine to other countries and that is why they are unable to fulfill their contractual obligations with Canada. It could be a little more subtle than this and maybe GlaxoSmithKline are preparing another type of drug, or otherwise diverting their capacity, to be used by another country at Canada's expense. If this were the case, it is impossible to imagine that Harper and Aglukkaq would not know about this.
If this is the case, this is astonishingly unconscionable by Harper and Aglukkaq and the Con government. One would expect that the first thing they would want to clarify is that GlaxoSmithKline is not shipping the vaccine to anyone else, or otherwise diverting their capacity, while shortchanging us.
The failure by Harper and Aglukkaq to clarify this certainly raises eyebrows and we can only ask ourselves why such unconscionable behavior, especially in this time of national urgency.
Given Harper and the Con's track record of obscuring and obstructing, and hiding the truth, it is easy to conclude that he, Aglukkaq and the Con's are hiding something. Further, that there is no clear tracking of the doses is a well used technique for obscuring the truth and one it is easy to see Harper employing, amongst others of course.
So, perhaps the suggestion that Canada's vaccine is going to the US army in Afghanistan is not so far fetched. Certainly, if it is being diverted, or Canaad is being sold out to other interests, every Canadian has a right to know.
Given Harper's general policy of obscuring and obstruction the truth and suppressing the facts, it is not surprising that we haven't got a clear explanation and probably won't get one from the Harper, Baird, Clement, Aglukkaq or any other Con, no matter how important it is.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Liberal.ca
http://www.liberal.ca/en/newsroom/media-releases/16823_liberal-doctors-present-timeline-of-conservative-h1n1-incompetence
Liberal doctors present timeline of Conservative H1N1 incompetence Liberal MPs today recounted the Conservative government’s timeline of failure for preparing for H1N1 when compared to other countries.
H1N1 Timeline
http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/031109_h1n1e.pdf
In their own words: H1N1 preparedness: Harper’s failure
Just the facts: Conservatives delayed H1N1 vaccine Order While the Conservative government is blaming the provinces and the vaccine manufacturer for H1N1 vaccine delays, the facts show that the federal government delayed ordering the vaccine when compared to other countries.
H1N1 fiasco
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)