Submitted: 12:51 PM on December 31, 2010 The Globe and Mail
2018: The new health care, Preston Manning, Globe and Mail, 30 Dec.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/2018-the-new-health-care/article1852490/comments/
Preston Manning is leaving out the most important thing, but to no surprise since it highlights the social injustice of a two, in his case, three tiered system.
In a two tiered health care system, the 'doors' simply do not lead to the same place.
They lead to distinctly different levels of service, one for the rich and one for those that simply cannot afford it.
Manning suggests a third tier 'not-for-profit'. However, he makes no effort to explain just who would be running it, who would be providing the services and why it would be any cheaper for "consumers". He is simply leaving it to the read to infer that by using the phrase 'not-for-profit' it would somehow be cheaper - sounds like a Con to me.
Fundamental to Con ideology is privatization of everything, especially of Health care. That means that individuals pay as they go. If you do not have the funds, then, simply put, tough-luck-for-you.
Con'ism is not simply that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It is more the rich get everything and everyone else gets what's left.
It bifurcates the society into two very separate and distinct classes: the vast minority of upper class, and everyone else upon whose blood seat and tear the upper class gains and maintains their wealth.
This needs no scientific experiment, we have spent the last two hundred years climbing out of this moral injustice.
If you have lots of money then that Con'ism is fine, in fact good.
However, the vast majority of people in Canada, including most middle income earners, would simply lose all their personal net worth, including their house, if they had to pay for a heart attack, cancer treatment, etc.,
One of the things that gives Canadians their identity and makes them proud to be Canadians is their compassion for the less fortunate, their willingness to get together and help, their desire to make Canada a good place to live with a standard of living that allows all to live with dignity, to seek their potentials. Government is to allow people joining together to help those that need help. Privatization, especially in the Health-care area, entails a dismantling of Federalism.
What should attract people to Canada is our standard of living for all, a quality of life shared by all, our social justice, our compassion for all, and not that we are a 'wild west' where the rich and powerful are free to do as they will.
I strongly suspect that even the enlightened rich prefer living in a just society. It is only the greedy and power hungry that thrive in the barren wasteland that is the result of Con'ism.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
31 December, 2010
29 December, 2010
- Why the Harper Middle of the Road Con - Moderate is Moderate and Extremist is Extremist and never the twain shall meet - except in political hype-dom.
Grits dismiss NDP-Tory détente as electioneering, Bill Curry, Globe and Mail Update December 29, 2010.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/grits-dismiss-ndp-tory-dtente-as-electioneering/article1851914/
Darrell Bricker's opinion as set out in this article (at the bottom) sounds a bit (actually more like a bite) biased and more political hype than hard-core analysis. I wonder why that might be.
Wait a minute a quick Google search on "Ipsos Reid"&"Darrell Bricker" shows:
www.seventhavenuelit.com/bricker_profile.pdf
". . .
Prior to joining Ipsos-Reid Corporation (formerly the Angus
Reid Group) in 1990, he was Director of Public Opinion
Research in the Office of the Prime Minister.
. . . "
1990 ??? Wasn't that the Mulroney hayday, or, at least, the beginning of the end.
A strong Con connection, I wonder if that has anything to do with it???
"Mr. Bricker says the Conservatives have a strong lock on centre-right voters, while centre-left voters are split between the Liberals, the Bloc, the NDP and the Greens. "
Mr. Bricker's statement "the Conservatives have a strong lock on centre-right voters" may be Right (politically) but it is simply not right (in my reconings).
If Harper and the Con's did, they would poll consistently in the upper 30's generally across all polls, no matter which pollster.
In reality the polls very consistently show, and have done so for quite some time now, 33% (within stat err) die-hards who would support Harper and the Con's to the extreme and the good of Canada and Canadians be dam[redacted]ed. Ask Bricker.
Harper would very much like to 'con' the moderate majority into thinking he and the Con's are somehow the PC Party of old and occupy the centre-right. They're not and they don't.
Why would Harper want to do this, as opposed to say, standing up, being counted and and in an open, forthright manner say "I am at the Extreme Right Wing of Canadian Politics".
Simple: Moderate is Moderate and Extremist is Extremist and never the twain shall meet - except in political hype-dom.
Of all people that should know all this you'd think someone with Darrell Bricker's background would.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/grits-dismiss-ndp-tory-dtente-as-electioneering/article1851914/
Darrell Bricker's opinion as set out in this article (at the bottom) sounds a bit (actually more like a bite) biased and more political hype than hard-core analysis. I wonder why that might be.
Wait a minute a quick Google search on "Ipsos Reid"&"Darrell Bricker" shows:
www.seventhavenuelit.com/bricker_profile.pdf
". . .
Prior to joining Ipsos-Reid Corporation (formerly the Angus
Reid Group) in 1990, he was Director of Public Opinion
Research in the Office of the Prime Minister.
. . . "
1990 ??? Wasn't that the Mulroney hayday, or, at least, the beginning of the end.
A strong Con connection, I wonder if that has anything to do with it???
"Mr. Bricker says the Conservatives have a strong lock on centre-right voters, while centre-left voters are split between the Liberals, the Bloc, the NDP and the Greens. "
Mr. Bricker's statement "the Conservatives have a strong lock on centre-right voters" may be Right (politically) but it is simply not right (in my reconings).
If Harper and the Con's did, they would poll consistently in the upper 30's generally across all polls, no matter which pollster.
In reality the polls very consistently show, and have done so for quite some time now, 33% (within stat err) die-hards who would support Harper and the Con's to the extreme and the good of Canada and Canadians be dam[redacted]ed. Ask Bricker.
Harper would very much like to 'con' the moderate majority into thinking he and the Con's are somehow the PC Party of old and occupy the centre-right. They're not and they don't.
Why would Harper want to do this, as opposed to say, standing up, being counted and and in an open, forthright manner say "I am at the Extreme Right Wing of Canadian Politics".
Simple: Moderate is Moderate and Extremist is Extremist and never the twain shall meet - except in political hype-dom.
Of all people that should know all this you'd think someone with Darrell Bricker's background would.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- And I dreamed I saw the F-35 stealth jet planes . . . turn into health care, child care, retirement security, post secondary education . . . across our nation (take-off from Joni Mitchell lyrics 'Woodstock')
I can't seem to be able to post it to The Recorder???
F-35 jets aren’t a good buy, Edmund Pries, The Recorder, 29 Dec.'10
http://www.therecord.com/opinion/editorial/article/306568--f-35-jets-aren-t-a-good-buy
"A 2007 study by Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier of the University of Massachusetts (Amherst) and the Political Economy Research Institute, titled The U.S. Employment Effects of Military and Domestic Spending Priorities, indicates that for every $1 billion of investment per sector, each sector would create the following number of jobs (Canadian figures would obviously vary, but likely not by much):
• Military/Defence: 8,555
• Health care: 12,883
• Education: 17,687
• Mass transit: 19,795
• Home weatherization/infrastructure construction: 12,804"
These figures are overall, and it is very likely that the 'Military/Defence' jobs has the lowest % that would actually be created in Canada.
Good article.
It really illustrates the hypocrisy, deceit and hyper-partisan nature of Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Jim Flaherty and last but not least, Tony Clement (and all the Con's for that matter).
Harper's argument that it creates jobs was something that was made up after they saw the massive negative reaction to spending $16b (and counting) on F-35's.
The initial reason was a play on national pride, MacKay's 'eye-watering' technology pitch and how we should do Right (not morally anyway) by our military, and hay, they really, really need this 'strike' fighter.
But, once Canadians started contemplating the 'eye-watering' bill, and ask themselves just why in the world Canada would really, really need, or have any need whatsoever for, a strike fighter anyway, Harper and the Con's had to retreat.
This explains why there are no guarantees for Canadians companies to get contracts, as is the norm.
If job creation were their reason for purchasing the 65 F-35's, then it would only have been rational that they would have held out to having the jobs guaranteed.
Why is it that Harper acts 'hard-nosed' when dealing with everyone else, much to the detriment of Canada's Int'l reputation, (e.g., it seems to me Harper argument for playing 'hard-nosed' with the Saudi's over the military base was potential jobs lost, albeit very indirect and speculative) but is a pushover when it comes to the US industrial-military complex.
The Harper 'con' of job loss in that industry and the really, really need of the military has created a sense of entitlement in our military - as though Canadians are there to serve our military and not the military to serve Canada and all Canadians - and that industry, as if there could be no better way to benefit Canada than promote their industry. If they do not get the jobs, it is because Harper did not insist on job creation in Canada, it's just that simple.
"16 billion for 'future generation' fighter jets? . . .
Mr. Stephen Harper, how about 'future generation' Canadians.
Peter MacKay presented the procurement in Parliament as "eye-watering technology"
(and this is in Hansard) . . .
Hey Peter how about the 'eye-watering' costs." (25/08/10, cicblog.com/comments.html)
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
F-35 jets aren’t a good buy, Edmund Pries, The Recorder, 29 Dec.'10
http://www.therecord.com/opinion/editorial/article/306568--f-35-jets-aren-t-a-good-buy
"A 2007 study by Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier of the University of Massachusetts (Amherst) and the Political Economy Research Institute, titled The U.S. Employment Effects of Military and Domestic Spending Priorities, indicates that for every $1 billion of investment per sector, each sector would create the following number of jobs (Canadian figures would obviously vary, but likely not by much):
• Military/Defence: 8,555
• Health care: 12,883
• Education: 17,687
• Mass transit: 19,795
• Home weatherization/infrastructure construction: 12,804"
These figures are overall, and it is very likely that the 'Military/Defence' jobs has the lowest % that would actually be created in Canada.
Good article.
It really illustrates the hypocrisy, deceit and hyper-partisan nature of Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Jim Flaherty and last but not least, Tony Clement (and all the Con's for that matter).
Harper's argument that it creates jobs was something that was made up after they saw the massive negative reaction to spending $16b (and counting) on F-35's.
The initial reason was a play on national pride, MacKay's 'eye-watering' technology pitch and how we should do Right (not morally anyway) by our military, and hay, they really, really need this 'strike' fighter.
But, once Canadians started contemplating the 'eye-watering' bill, and ask themselves just why in the world Canada would really, really need, or have any need whatsoever for, a strike fighter anyway, Harper and the Con's had to retreat.
This explains why there are no guarantees for Canadians companies to get contracts, as is the norm.
If job creation were their reason for purchasing the 65 F-35's, then it would only have been rational that they would have held out to having the jobs guaranteed.
Why is it that Harper acts 'hard-nosed' when dealing with everyone else, much to the detriment of Canada's Int'l reputation, (e.g., it seems to me Harper argument for playing 'hard-nosed' with the Saudi's over the military base was potential jobs lost, albeit very indirect and speculative) but is a pushover when it comes to the US industrial-military complex.
The Harper 'con' of job loss in that industry and the really, really need of the military has created a sense of entitlement in our military - as though Canadians are there to serve our military and not the military to serve Canada and all Canadians - and that industry, as if there could be no better way to benefit Canada than promote their industry. If they do not get the jobs, it is because Harper did not insist on job creation in Canada, it's just that simple.
"16 billion for 'future generation' fighter jets? . . .
Mr. Stephen Harper, how about 'future generation' Canadians.
Peter MacKay presented the procurement in Parliament as "eye-watering technology"
(and this is in Hansard) . . .
Hey Peter how about the 'eye-watering' costs." (25/08/10, cicblog.com/comments.html)
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
28 December, 2010
- For Whom The Poll Tolls
Back to Canadians split on federal budget, poll shows, Canadians split on federal budget, December 28, 2010, Bruce Campion-Smith
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/912782--canadians-split-on-federal-budget-poll-shows?bn=1#article
As I have been saying for quite some time now, these polls can not be properly interpreted without taking into account the die-hard support (manifesting in 33%) for Harper and the Cons.
I refer to this phenomenon as the 'die-hard right-wing extremist, epi-centre in Alberta' factor:
33% points of Harper and the Con's support in a poll can be attributed to the die-hard right-wing extremist*, epi-centre in Alberta factor. They will support Harper and the Con's pretty much no matter what, and no matter what the impact on Canada or all Canadians which makes them extremist in the expression of their views - that it is extreme right wing is manifest.
This is particularly important when looking at "Best able to deal with the following issues:"
Con range from 36% - 33%. The 33% die-hards are going to choose Con no matter what and these numbers show nothing to very little above that.
National Debt & End Recession may be slightly outside the margin of error, but by at most approx a point. Also, these are very low on the Concern's list - vis.: spending: 7%/5%/1% for Spending/ Infrastructure spending/ Defence spending, respectively.
If so many people had so little concerned about the Harper spending you would expect the number for the Con's in the 'Best to deal with the issues' to include a significant non-Con-die-hard element, and it doesn't.
The important thing here is the 'not sure' and given the 10 of millions Harper has spent on promoting themselves and the Con party regarding 'solving' the recession, these numbers show a significant rejection of the Harper con on being the best to handle the economy.
In other words, the only people 'buying into the Harper 'con' on the Economy are the die-hard Con's' and pretty much no one else.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
(12/28/10) - Canadians Split on What the Next Federal Budget Should Address http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/43713/canadians-split-on-what-the-next-federal-budget-should-address/ Lloyd MacILquham,
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/912782--canadians-split-on-federal-budget-poll-shows?bn=1#article
As I have been saying for quite some time now, these polls can not be properly interpreted without taking into account the die-hard support (manifesting in 33%) for Harper and the Cons.
I refer to this phenomenon as the 'die-hard right-wing extremist, epi-centre in Alberta' factor:
33% points of Harper and the Con's support in a poll can be attributed to the die-hard right-wing extremist*, epi-centre in Alberta factor. They will support Harper and the Con's pretty much no matter what, and no matter what the impact on Canada or all Canadians which makes them extremist in the expression of their views - that it is extreme right wing is manifest.
This is particularly important when looking at "Best able to deal with the following issues:"
Con range from 36% - 33%. The 33% die-hards are going to choose Con no matter what and these numbers show nothing to very little above that.
National Debt & End Recession may be slightly outside the margin of error, but by at most approx a point. Also, these are very low on the Concern's list - vis.: spending: 7%/5%/1% for Spending/ Infrastructure spending/ Defence spending, respectively.
If so many people had so little concerned about the Harper spending you would expect the number for the Con's in the 'Best to deal with the issues' to include a significant non-Con-die-hard element, and it doesn't.
The important thing here is the 'not sure' and given the 10 of millions Harper has spent on promoting themselves and the Con party regarding 'solving' the recession, these numbers show a significant rejection of the Harper con on being the best to handle the economy.
In other words, the only people 'buying into the Harper 'con' on the Economy are the die-hard Con's' and pretty much no one else.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
| Best able to deal with the following issues | |||
| | Conservative Party | Liberal | Not sure |
| Rein in national debt | 36% | 21% | 42% |
| End the recession | 36% | 17% | 47% |
| inflation | 34% | 21% | 45% |
| Create jobs | 33% | 28% | 39% |
| Priorities What is your biggest concern regarding the Canadian economy? | |||||||
| | Canada | BC | AB | MB/SK | ON | PQ | ATL |
| Balancing budget | 28% | 29% | 23% | 38% | 23% | 35% | 17% |
| Job creation initiatives | 23% | 26% | 16% | 7% | 31% | 15% | 28% |
| Health care spending | 21% | 23% | 28% | 13% | 17% | 24% | 29% |
| Spending | 7% | 6% | 7% | 19% | 8% | 5% | 4% |
| Infrastructure spending | 5% | 5% | 5% | 6% | 5% | 6% | 4% |
| Defence spending | 1% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 2% |
| Other | 5% | 3% | 3% | 6% | 7% | 4% | 6% |
| None these | 1% | 1% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 4% | 0% |
| Not sure | 8% | 5% | 16% | 10% | 7% | 7% | 10% |
27 December, 2010
- Harper, Another Term as PM - Let's Get Real
Ignatieff out to lure voters from the NDP, Bloc, Gloria Galloway, Globe and Mail, Dec. 26, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-out-to-lure-voters-from-the-ndp-bloc/article1849812/comments/
Harper and the Con's have a fierce (die-hard) support by a small polarized fraction (right-wing extremists) of the population but large enough (33%) and focused enough (epi-centred Alberta) to get them in power and maintain it because all the other parties are even more polarized.
And, you can betcha they will go out and vote in the next Federal election.
But with this 33% die-hard support, as long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and continues to, implement his right wing extremist program and policies that are strictly partizan with no concern for the good of Canada and Canadians.
The only restraint Harper has is precipitating a consolidation of the (66% Canadians) Moderate Majority - the 66% Canadians that do not buy into the political extremism of Harper and his Con's, that don't want him or subscribe to what he stands for.
The very low voter turn out in Vaughan (32.5% - Elections Canada) combined with this fierce Con support was the reason the Con's won the by-election (49.1% of the vote, Lib 46.6%). In other words, Vaughan very likely has many more Liberals but they now are represented by a Con. This could very easily happen Federally with a low voter turnout.
In a situation where a party has a small but fierce, die-hard support there are only two things that will put them in power, a low voter turnout and a polarized opposition.
Harper and the Con's know all this and strategize towards it.
By-elections are not the "harbingers of federal general election turnout" hopefully.
But if the moderate majority (66%) do not get animated, motivated, consolidated and get out and vote we will have another term of Harper and the Con's, perhaps even a majority.
The Liberal Party is the best and most likely alternative, especially given its long and proud history, its wide, central, and inclusive position on our political spectrum and its significantly greater popular support than the other non-Con parties.
As we have experienced for the last 5 years, a vote for any party other than the Liberals is a vote for Harper.
It's just that simple.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-out-to-lure-voters-from-the-ndp-bloc/article1849812/comments/
Harper and the Con's have a fierce (die-hard) support by a small polarized fraction (right-wing extremists) of the population but large enough (33%) and focused enough (epi-centred Alberta) to get them in power and maintain it because all the other parties are even more polarized.
And, you can betcha they will go out and vote in the next Federal election.
But with this 33% die-hard support, as long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and continues to, implement his right wing extremist program and policies that are strictly partizan with no concern for the good of Canada and Canadians.
The only restraint Harper has is precipitating a consolidation of the (66% Canadians) Moderate Majority - the 66% Canadians that do not buy into the political extremism of Harper and his Con's, that don't want him or subscribe to what he stands for.
The very low voter turn out in Vaughan (32.5% - Elections Canada) combined with this fierce Con support was the reason the Con's won the by-election (49.1% of the vote, Lib 46.6%). In other words, Vaughan very likely has many more Liberals but they now are represented by a Con. This could very easily happen Federally with a low voter turnout.
In a situation where a party has a small but fierce, die-hard support there are only two things that will put them in power, a low voter turnout and a polarized opposition.
Harper and the Con's know all this and strategize towards it.
By-elections are not the "harbingers of federal general election turnout" hopefully.
But if the moderate majority (66%) do not get animated, motivated, consolidated and get out and vote we will have another term of Harper and the Con's, perhaps even a majority.
The Liberal Party is the best and most likely alternative, especially given its long and proud history, its wide, central, and inclusive position on our political spectrum and its significantly greater popular support than the other non-Con parties.
As we have experienced for the last 5 years, a vote for any party other than the Liberals is a vote for Harper.
It's just that simple.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- To Give Harper The Boot - The Moderate Majority Must Get Motivated, Animated, Consolidated
We've only got ourselves to blame. Instead of whining, voters must engage, Dan Lett, Winnipeg Free Press, 27/12/2010
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/weve-only-got-ourselves-to-blame-112493999.html
Harper and the Con's have a fierce (die-hard) support by a small polarized fraction (right-wing extremists) of the population but large enough (33%) and focused enough (epi-centred Alberta) to get them in power and maintain it because all the other parties are even more polarized.
And, you can betcha they will go out and vote in the next Federal election.
But with this 33% die-hard support, as long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and continues to, implement his right wing extremist program and policies that are strictly partizan with no concern for the good of Canada and Canadians.
The only restraint Harper has is precipitating a consolidation of the (66% Canadians) Moderate Majority - the 66% Canadians that do not buy into the political extremism of Harper and his Con's, that don't want him or subscribe to what he stands for.
The very low voter turn out in Vaughan (32.5% - Elections Canada) combined with this fierce Con support was the reason the Con's won the by-election (49.1% of the vote, Lib 46.6%). In other words, Vaughan very likely has many more Liberals but they now are represented by a Con. This could very easily happen Federally with a low voter turnout.
In a situation where a party has a small but fierce, die-hard support there are only two things that will put them in power, a low voter turnout and a polarized opposition.
Harper and the Con's know all this and strategize towards it.
By-elections are not the "harbingers of federal general election turnout" hopefully.
But if the moderate majority (66%) do not get animated, motivated, consolidated and get out and vote we will have another term of Harper and the Con's, perhaps even a majority. And, if you hear moans now just wait for that.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/weve-only-got-ourselves-to-blame-112493999.html
Harper and the Con's have a fierce (die-hard) support by a small polarized fraction (right-wing extremists) of the population but large enough (33%) and focused enough (epi-centred Alberta) to get them in power and maintain it because all the other parties are even more polarized.
And, you can betcha they will go out and vote in the next Federal election.
But with this 33% die-hard support, as long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and continues to, implement his right wing extremist program and policies that are strictly partizan with no concern for the good of Canada and Canadians.
The only restraint Harper has is precipitating a consolidation of the (66% Canadians) Moderate Majority - the 66% Canadians that do not buy into the political extremism of Harper and his Con's, that don't want him or subscribe to what he stands for.
The very low voter turn out in Vaughan (32.5% - Elections Canada) combined with this fierce Con support was the reason the Con's won the by-election (49.1% of the vote, Lib 46.6%). In other words, Vaughan very likely has many more Liberals but they now are represented by a Con. This could very easily happen Federally with a low voter turnout.
In a situation where a party has a small but fierce, die-hard support there are only two things that will put them in power, a low voter turnout and a polarized opposition.
Harper and the Con's know all this and strategize towards it.
By-elections are not the "harbingers of federal general election turnout" hopefully.
But if the moderate majority (66%) do not get animated, motivated, consolidated and get out and vote we will have another term of Harper and the Con's, perhaps even a majority. And, if you hear moans now just wait for that.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
24 December, 2010
- Harper: Onward Con'ism Soldiers - Ongoing Fight Against Truth, Fairness and The Best Interests of All Canadians
Posted: 12:04 & 12:07 PM, December 24, 2010 The Globe and Mail
Budget watchdog lacks credibility, not cash: Jim Flaherty, Bill Curry, Globe and Mail, December 23, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/budget-watchdog-lacks-credibility-not-cash-jim-flaherty/article1848072/
I think it is outrageous, simply indecent, for Jim Flaherty to attack Kevin Page's credibility this way.
Of course, it is totally predictable.
How many other dedicated public servant, with what's best for Canada and carrying out their mandates have been viciously attacked, allegedly lacking credibility, on a personal level by Harper, Flaherty and the other Con's, usually.
I'll save you the trouble of counting - it's every single one of them, men and women, who have dared to stand up, do their jobs in an honest, objective, transparent fashion and tell Canadians anything that is out of line with Harper hype.
Kevin Page questioned Flaherty' assertion that Canada would grow itself out of deficit by '15-'16 (as long as Harper was in charge, of course). It doesn't take a huge budget to come to that conclusion and his credibility would have been in question if he supported these 'projections'. Now, Flaherty himself is having to back track on this 'prediction':
"Ottawa must continue with hefty spending 'in order to continue to foster some economic growth,' Flaherty explained.
In 2011, the government expects the economy to expand by only 2.5 per cent, considerably lower than the 3.2 per cent Flaherty forecast in the budget last March." (23/12/10 - Star)
It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that the implementation of Harper's self-declared 'tough on crime' policies will cost Canadians 10 of billions of dollars - it's just that simple.
And Page's approach to whether the Harper Infrastructure program created jobs is quite ingenious - as far as Harper and the Con's are concerned, anyway - simply ask those directly involved. Although Flaherty has attacked this vehemently, I have yet to see any rational argument, well founded in reality, that would back him on his allegations.
"[Flaherty:]‘Well, they won’t be able to meet the goals that they’ve set out.’ It’s actually up to us to make those decisions."
What kind of non-sense is this.
When Harper, Flaherty expound some kind of pie-in-the-sky, grandiose claims, designed only for partisan purposes with the impact on Canada and Canadians playing no factor whatsoever
and someone, qualified and objective, in the cold, hard light of reality says that there is an 85% chance it won't happen,
Harper and Flaherty have no right, as our representatives, to attack their credibility, but must act in the best interests of all Canadians and say, "thank you".
In whom should we trust, Kevin Page or Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and the Conservative Party?
Weighing both sides objectively, I put my trust in Kevin Page.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Budget watchdog lacks credibility, not cash: Jim Flaherty, Bill Curry, Globe and Mail, December 23, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/budget-watchdog-lacks-credibility-not-cash-jim-flaherty/article1848072/
I think it is outrageous, simply indecent, for Jim Flaherty to attack Kevin Page's credibility this way.
Of course, it is totally predictable.
How many other dedicated public servant, with what's best for Canada and carrying out their mandates have been viciously attacked, allegedly lacking credibility, on a personal level by Harper, Flaherty and the other Con's, usually.
I'll save you the trouble of counting - it's every single one of them, men and women, who have dared to stand up, do their jobs in an honest, objective, transparent fashion and tell Canadians anything that is out of line with Harper hype.
Kevin Page questioned Flaherty' assertion that Canada would grow itself out of deficit by '15-'16 (as long as Harper was in charge, of course). It doesn't take a huge budget to come to that conclusion and his credibility would have been in question if he supported these 'projections'. Now, Flaherty himself is having to back track on this 'prediction':
"Ottawa must continue with hefty spending 'in order to continue to foster some economic growth,' Flaherty explained.
In 2011, the government expects the economy to expand by only 2.5 per cent, considerably lower than the 3.2 per cent Flaherty forecast in the budget last March." (23/12/10 - Star)
It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that the implementation of Harper's self-declared 'tough on crime' policies will cost Canadians 10 of billions of dollars - it's just that simple.
And Page's approach to whether the Harper Infrastructure program created jobs is quite ingenious - as far as Harper and the Con's are concerned, anyway - simply ask those directly involved. Although Flaherty has attacked this vehemently, I have yet to see any rational argument, well founded in reality, that would back him on his allegations.
"[Flaherty:]‘Well, they won’t be able to meet the goals that they’ve set out.’ It’s actually up to us to make those decisions."
What kind of non-sense is this.
When Harper, Flaherty expound some kind of pie-in-the-sky, grandiose claims, designed only for partisan purposes with the impact on Canada and Canadians playing no factor whatsoever
and someone, qualified and objective, in the cold, hard light of reality says that there is an 85% chance it won't happen,
Harper and Flaherty have no right, as our representatives, to attack their credibility, but must act in the best interests of all Canadians and say, "thank you".
In whom should we trust, Kevin Page or Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and the Conservative Party?
Weighing both sides objectively, I put my trust in Kevin Page.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
23 December, 2010
- Harper, Puzzle me This: When Is a Con a Con. Easy, Robin, When It's a Con.
Submitted: 9:01& 9:09 am, PST, 23 Dec.'10 Toronto Star
Flaherty rethinks Canada’s budget, Dec 23 2010, Blair Gable/For the Toronto Star, Les Whittington, Ottawa Bureau
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/911306--flaherty-rethinks-canada-s-budget?bn=1
"Ottawa must continue with hefty spending 'in order to continue to foster some economic growth,' Flaherty explained.
In 2011, the government expects the economy to expand by only 2.5 per cent, considerably lower than the 3.2 per cent Flaherty forecast in the budget last March.
Asked how extending infrastructure spending and earmarking more cash to help the unemployed would affect his pledge to reduce Ottawa's $45 billion budget deficit, Flaherty said the Conservatives might chop away at other areas of Ottawa's funding. 'What we could do is cut back on other spending in the government,' he remarked."
What happened to the Harper-Flaherty assertion: steady as she goes and we will grow out of deficit by 2015 - 2016 (as long as we remain in power, of course).
Don't tell me that was just a con by Harper, Flaherty and the rest of the Con's to gain people's confidence that they are sound fiscal managers. You know just another Flanagan Fundamental Principle of Con'ism as applied by Harper. (“It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible").
If only there were an independent, non-parisan, institution that were, say, answerable to the people of Canada, that could let us know what our real fiscal situation is.
Oh, yah, thanks for reminding me, there is - the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), Jimmy Kevin (too early) Page.
Let's see, what does he have to say about this:
"In a report to be released Wednesday, Mr. Page warns there is only a small chance that the Conservative government will meet its deficit-slaying target.
Mr. Flaherty announced last month in his fall fiscal update that the federal deficit hit a record $55.6-billion last year but will be turned into a surplus by 2015-2016." (G&M 2 Nov.'10)
Oh,yah, then there's Mr Page's report on the infrastructure stimulus program . . . “It doesn’t score well on the employment side,” Mr. Page said in an interview with The Globe and Mail. “You’re spending a lot of money and it’s not creating very much in terms of jobs.” (G&M 2 Dec.'10)
Looks like Page was right on and Flaherty seems to have a somewhat distorted understanding of Canada's ecomony.
"Move over Jimi and let Kevi take over"
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Flaherty rethinks Canada’s budget, Dec 23 2010, Blair Gable/For the Toronto Star, Les Whittington, Ottawa Bureau
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/911306--flaherty-rethinks-canada-s-budget?bn=1
"Ottawa must continue with hefty spending 'in order to continue to foster some economic growth,' Flaherty explained.
In 2011, the government expects the economy to expand by only 2.5 per cent, considerably lower than the 3.2 per cent Flaherty forecast in the budget last March.
Asked how extending infrastructure spending and earmarking more cash to help the unemployed would affect his pledge to reduce Ottawa's $45 billion budget deficit, Flaherty said the Conservatives might chop away at other areas of Ottawa's funding. 'What we could do is cut back on other spending in the government,' he remarked."
What happened to the Harper-Flaherty assertion: steady as she goes and we will grow out of deficit by 2015 - 2016 (as long as we remain in power, of course).
Don't tell me that was just a con by Harper, Flaherty and the rest of the Con's to gain people's confidence that they are sound fiscal managers. You know just another Flanagan Fundamental Principle of Con'ism as applied by Harper. (“It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible").
If only there were an independent, non-parisan, institution that were, say, answerable to the people of Canada, that could let us know what our real fiscal situation is.
Oh, yah, thanks for reminding me, there is - the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), Jimmy Kevin (too early) Page.
Let's see, what does he have to say about this:
"In a report to be released Wednesday, Mr. Page warns there is only a small chance that the Conservative government will meet its deficit-slaying target.
Mr. Flaherty announced last month in his fall fiscal update that the federal deficit hit a record $55.6-billion last year but will be turned into a surplus by 2015-2016." (G&M 2 Nov.'10)
Oh,yah, then there's Mr Page's report on the infrastructure stimulus program . . . “It doesn’t score well on the employment side,” Mr. Page said in an interview with The Globe and Mail. “You’re spending a lot of money and it’s not creating very much in terms of jobs.” (G&M 2 Dec.'10)
Looks like Page was right on and Flaherty seems to have a somewhat distorted understanding of Canada's ecomony.
"Move over Jimi and let Kevi take over"
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
22 December, 2010
- Stephen Harper's Utopia (The Rich Need Only Subscribe)
Submitted: 9:11am, PST, 22 Dec.'10
CPP battle tailor-made for Opposition, December 21, 2010, Scott Reid, Special to CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/12/21/opinion-scott-reid-pensions.html
"is bold confirmation that Ayn Rand still triumphs over common sense, public interest and sound policy in Harper's Ottawa."
I think everyone would agree that with Harper and the Con's, ideology, partisanship and promotion and implementation of policies that lie at the extreme right of our society with Canada and all Canadians be dam[redacted]ed is not simply paramount, or "triumphs", but exclusive and rationality, objectivity and the good of all has no place. But, come on, who will understand the allusion to Ayn Rand. Better, who will be alienated by it.
The Harper CPP proposal is simply one more step, our in more vernacular terms 'nail in the coffin', in the dismantling of Canada and a nation. It takes Canada away from a tolerant, compassionate society, where all Canadians join together to help those that need help and bring us one step closer to an America style, everyone for themselves, where the distinction between the well off and those than need help consolidates and engrosses.
There is no doubt that that if you are well off, it may be that privatizing the CPP is an advantage, so too, dismantling and privatizing Health care - if you can afford it, it may just give you shorter wait times and perhaps even better service.
The expression "money is everything" may be Right (ideologically) but is wrong (morally) and isolates the person from their own humanity but also the humanity of all those with whom we share life.
The fundamental issue here is:
Do we want a society where entitlement is based on the amount of wealth you accumulate, where the rich have special status in society and first dibs on the essentials of life - in other words an elitist society, something akin to what our forefathers spent generations climbing out of.
If so, then there is Harper and the Con's
Or,
Do we want to maintain an strengthen our current way of life where the value and dignity of life is paramount right across the board, where we are all equals, where entitlement to the essentials of life are based on our common humanity and not being rich, where 'personal net worth' means just what it says and not how much money you have.
If this is your vision of Canada then stand up, be counted and consolidate against Harper and Con'ism.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
CPP battle tailor-made for Opposition, December 21, 2010, Scott Reid, Special to CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/12/21/opinion-scott-reid-pensions.html
"is bold confirmation that Ayn Rand still triumphs over common sense, public interest and sound policy in Harper's Ottawa."
I think everyone would agree that with Harper and the Con's, ideology, partisanship and promotion and implementation of policies that lie at the extreme right of our society with Canada and all Canadians be dam[redacted]ed is not simply paramount, or "triumphs", but exclusive and rationality, objectivity and the good of all has no place. But, come on, who will understand the allusion to Ayn Rand. Better, who will be alienated by it.
The Harper CPP proposal is simply one more step, our in more vernacular terms 'nail in the coffin', in the dismantling of Canada and a nation. It takes Canada away from a tolerant, compassionate society, where all Canadians join together to help those that need help and bring us one step closer to an America style, everyone for themselves, where the distinction between the well off and those than need help consolidates and engrosses.
There is no doubt that that if you are well off, it may be that privatizing the CPP is an advantage, so too, dismantling and privatizing Health care - if you can afford it, it may just give you shorter wait times and perhaps even better service.
The expression "money is everything" may be Right (ideologically) but is wrong (morally) and isolates the person from their own humanity but also the humanity of all those with whom we share life.
The fundamental issue here is:
Do we want a society where entitlement is based on the amount of wealth you accumulate, where the rich have special status in society and first dibs on the essentials of life - in other words an elitist society, something akin to what our forefathers spent generations climbing out of.
If so, then there is Harper and the Con's
Or,
Do we want to maintain an strengthen our current way of life where the value and dignity of life is paramount right across the board, where we are all equals, where entitlement to the essentials of life are based on our common humanity and not being rich, where 'personal net worth' means just what it says and not how much money you have.
If this is your vision of Canada then stand up, be counted and consolidate against Harper and Con'ism.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
21 December, 2010
- Harper - There Are None So Con'd as Those That Will Not See
Posted: 11:08 AM on December 21, 2010
Lost in the fog of misinformation, Jeffrey Simpson, Globe and Mail, 18 Dec.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/lost-in-the-fog-of-misinformation/article1842869/
"This one found that 30 per cent of Canadians believed that Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff was somehow responsible for Canada’s humiliating loss in its pursuit of a Security Council seat. This line was put out by the Harper spin machine. It was so egregiously false that even the spin machine dropped it after a couple of days. But it seems the misinformation stuck in the minds of almost a third of the electorate."
This is not a question of being mis-informed. Education, logic, reason have nothing to do with it.
It is a question following Con Party lines to the extreme, no matter where it leads and how ridiculous it is in the light of reason and what impact it may have on Canada as a whole and all Canadians.
In fact the only thing that is surprising at all is that it was 30% and not 33% (although perhaps the same within the margin of error).
Harper and the Con's have a fierce (die-hard) support by a small polarized fraction (right-wing extremists) of the population but large enough (33%) and focused enough (epi-centred Alberta) to get them in power and maintain it because all the other parties are even more polarized. Sound familiar.
Harper and the Con's could call Ignatieff the devil himself and the polls would show 33% agree that this is true (no matter how inverted it may be in reality).
This phenomenon will feature prominently in the next election in the Harper attack ads. Not only do they get these people animated to increase support but there is the crowd hysteria effect as well - you know, in a crowd a few people start cheering and then it spreads to those that are uncommitted.
It is not the realities but the damage being caused by Harper and the Con's to this great nation of our they need to learn - the humiliating loss of the a Security Council seat is but one instance.
But with this 33% die-hard support, as long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and continues to, implement his right wing extremist program and policies that are strictly partizan with no concern for the good of Canada and Canadians.
The only restraint Harper has is precipitating a consolidation of the (66% Canadians) Moderate Majority - the 66% Canadians that do not buy into the political extremism of Harper and his Con's, that don't want him or subscribe to what he stands for.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Lost in the fog of misinformation, Jeffrey Simpson, Globe and Mail, 18 Dec.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/lost-in-the-fog-of-misinformation/article1842869/
"This one found that 30 per cent of Canadians believed that Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff was somehow responsible for Canada’s humiliating loss in its pursuit of a Security Council seat. This line was put out by the Harper spin machine. It was so egregiously false that even the spin machine dropped it after a couple of days. But it seems the misinformation stuck in the minds of almost a third of the electorate."
This is not a question of being mis-informed. Education, logic, reason have nothing to do with it.
It is a question following Con Party lines to the extreme, no matter where it leads and how ridiculous it is in the light of reason and what impact it may have on Canada as a whole and all Canadians.
In fact the only thing that is surprising at all is that it was 30% and not 33% (although perhaps the same within the margin of error).
Harper and the Con's have a fierce (die-hard) support by a small polarized fraction (right-wing extremists) of the population but large enough (33%) and focused enough (epi-centred Alberta) to get them in power and maintain it because all the other parties are even more polarized. Sound familiar.
Harper and the Con's could call Ignatieff the devil himself and the polls would show 33% agree that this is true (no matter how inverted it may be in reality).
This phenomenon will feature prominently in the next election in the Harper attack ads. Not only do they get these people animated to increase support but there is the crowd hysteria effect as well - you know, in a crowd a few people start cheering and then it spreads to those that are uncommitted.
It is not the realities but the damage being caused by Harper and the Con's to this great nation of our they need to learn - the humiliating loss of the a Security Council seat is but one instance.
But with this 33% die-hard support, as long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and continues to, implement his right wing extremist program and policies that are strictly partizan with no concern for the good of Canada and Canadians.
The only restraint Harper has is precipitating a consolidation of the (66% Canadians) Moderate Majority - the 66% Canadians that do not buy into the political extremism of Harper and his Con's, that don't want him or subscribe to what he stands for.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
20 December, 2010
- Harper Lead in the Polls: Much ado About Nothing.
Much ventured for only slight Conservative polling gain in 2010, Éric Grenier, Globe and Mail, Dec. 20, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/much-ventured-for-only-slight-conservative-polling-gain-in-2010/article1844239/
Perhaps Éric Grenier could engage in an in depth discussion of the accuracy of his numbers.
A review of the actually polling results will show maybe 2 - 4 % accuracy (19times out of 20, of course). However, they are notoriously inaccurate even by the time you get to the Provincial level.
Although it is hard to read Grenier has:
These are outside Ekos margin of error for the Cons, Libs, Grns and there is no number for "other". For the parties his numbers add up to 98.5, leaving no more than 1.5 for other - a review of Ekos suggests that this is questionable by about 1.5, but then how do you adjust the other numbers, e.g if you take it off the Con's you get 33.3 which is exactly inline with Ekos.
In order to 'seat project' he must have numbers at the riding level, even the Regional level is not sufficient. However, it is very difficult to do predictions even at the Prov level with the general National polls released:
The recent Ekos Poll, 9 Dec.'10, has the following accuracy:
REGION
British Columbia: +/- 7.6
Alberta: +/- 7.8
Saskatchewan/Manitoba: +/- 8.4
Ontario: +/- 3.6
Quebec: +/- 3.5
Atlantic Canada: +/- 8.1
Nationally the accuracy was: +/- 2.1
The above is typical of all such Ekos polls and it would be very surprising if they were out of line for all the other national polls by reputable pollsters.
It would be very interesting to see just exactly how Éric Grenier gets from those type of margins of error at the Prov level to seat projections.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/much-ventured-for-only-slight-conservative-polling-gain-in-2010/article1844239/
Perhaps Éric Grenier could engage in an in depth discussion of the accuracy of his numbers.
A review of the actually polling results will show maybe 2 - 4 % accuracy (19times out of 20, of course). However, they are notoriously inaccurate even by the time you get to the Provincial level.
The Ekos results Nationally for the last number of poll | ||||||||
| Date | Con | Lib | NDP | Grn | Blk | Other | Size | Margin of Error |
| 16 Dec: | 32.0% | 26.5% | 17.1% | 10.9% | 10.6% | 3.1% | 2135 | 2.1/dt> |
| 9 Dec.: | 33.7% | 29.2% | 14.4% | 10.4% | 9.8% | 2.5% | 2153 | 2.1 |
| 25 Nov.: | 33.3% | 27.1% | 16.6% | 9.5% | 9.5% | 4.0% | 1696 | 2.4 |
| 14 Nov.: | 29.4% | 28.6% | 19.3% | 10.7% | 9.3% | 2.7% | 1587 | 2.5 |
Although it is hard to read Grenier has:
| NAT | Con | Lib | NDP | Grn | Blk | Other | Size | Margin of Error |
| 34.8% | 29.2% | 15.6% | 8.7% | 10.2% | ? | ? | ? |
These are outside Ekos margin of error for the Cons, Libs, Grns and there is no number for "other". For the parties his numbers add up to 98.5, leaving no more than 1.5 for other - a review of Ekos suggests that this is questionable by about 1.5, but then how do you adjust the other numbers, e.g if you take it off the Con's you get 33.3 which is exactly inline with Ekos.
In order to 'seat project' he must have numbers at the riding level, even the Regional level is not sufficient. However, it is very difficult to do predictions even at the Prov level with the general National polls released:
The recent Ekos Poll, 9 Dec.'10, has the following accuracy:
REGION
British Columbia: +/- 7.6
Alberta: +/- 7.8
Saskatchewan/Manitoba: +/- 8.4
Ontario: +/- 3.6
Quebec: +/- 3.5
Atlantic Canada: +/- 8.1
Nationally the accuracy was: +/- 2.1
The above is typical of all such Ekos polls and it would be very surprising if they were out of line for all the other national polls by reputable pollsters.
It would be very interesting to see just exactly how Éric Grenier gets from those type of margins of error at the Prov level to seat projections.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
18 December, 2010
- Harper Nation Building: Nation? What Nation
Posted: 11:17 AM on December 18, 2010 The Globe and Mail
Is a Tory majority even possible? , Eric Grenier, Globe and Mail, Dec. 17, 2010http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/is-a-tory-majority-even-possible/article1842218/
"In the last election, there were 12 seats in which the Conservatives lost by a margin of 4 per cent or less. Logically, these would be the 12 seats targeted by the Tories in the next campaign. . . ."
As attractive as this method of projecting is, I am not sure it is an effective way to project seat results in an election. To say it is simplistic is simplistic.
Perhaps, Éric Grenier could do some actual number crunching and apply this model to previous elections to see how the result compared with the realities.
The inverse may be a better model for projecting losses - i.e. riding that list by greater than a certain amount will likely not win.
This is referred to as the "write-off" strategy. A party puts no efforts into a riding that lost the previous election by over 20%, say - just ask the Liberal Party.
Although the write-off strategy is attractive when determining how to apply scarce resources during a campaign, it in reality is counter-productive overall as a national party building process. The strong riding get stronger and the weak ridings get weaker resulting in regionalism, bifurcation ("bifurcation is a period doubling, quadrupling, etc., that accompanies the onset of chaos" - mathworld.wolfram.com - now that carries over) and polarization. The result is a government that has fierce (die-hard) support by a small polarized fraction (right-wing extremists) of the population but large enough (33%) and focused enough (epi-centred Alberta) to get them in power and maintain it because all the other parties are even more polarized. Sound familiar.
Better is the Howard Dean's principle of fighting as hard as you can everywhere at every level: "to be committed to winning elections at every level in every region of the country" (Wikipedia)
Then there is the related strategy of "swing ridings".
Perhaps Grenier is applying this general model where he is applying his logic to the determination of what will be "swing ridings".
In that case I suggest he rethink things and perhaps talk to Jason Kenny, look at the 905 ridings (and others) and the Harper strategy of isolated one-off policies aimed precisely at specific micro-regions and micro-demographics to gain their support. The implementation of his policies are right wing, extremist ideologically based, of course, but disjointed, fragmented, hyper-partisan and with the only purpose of acquiring and maintaining power, Canada and Canadians be dam[redacted]ed.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Is a Tory majority even possible? , Eric Grenier, Globe and Mail, Dec. 17, 2010http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/is-a-tory-majority-even-possible/article1842218/
"In the last election, there were 12 seats in which the Conservatives lost by a margin of 4 per cent or less. Logically, these would be the 12 seats targeted by the Tories in the next campaign. . . ."
As attractive as this method of projecting is, I am not sure it is an effective way to project seat results in an election. To say it is simplistic is simplistic.
Perhaps, Éric Grenier could do some actual number crunching and apply this model to previous elections to see how the result compared with the realities.
The inverse may be a better model for projecting losses - i.e. riding that list by greater than a certain amount will likely not win.
This is referred to as the "write-off" strategy. A party puts no efforts into a riding that lost the previous election by over 20%, say - just ask the Liberal Party.
Although the write-off strategy is attractive when determining how to apply scarce resources during a campaign, it in reality is counter-productive overall as a national party building process. The strong riding get stronger and the weak ridings get weaker resulting in regionalism, bifurcation ("bifurcation is a period doubling, quadrupling, etc., that accompanies the onset of chaos" - mathworld.wolfram.com - now that carries over) and polarization. The result is a government that has fierce (die-hard) support by a small polarized fraction (right-wing extremists) of the population but large enough (33%) and focused enough (epi-centred Alberta) to get them in power and maintain it because all the other parties are even more polarized. Sound familiar.
Better is the Howard Dean's principle of fighting as hard as you can everywhere at every level: "to be committed to winning elections at every level in every region of the country" (Wikipedia)
Then there is the related strategy of "swing ridings".
Perhaps Grenier is applying this general model where he is applying his logic to the determination of what will be "swing ridings".
In that case I suggest he rethink things and perhaps talk to Jason Kenny, look at the 905 ridings (and others) and the Harper strategy of isolated one-off policies aimed precisely at specific micro-regions and micro-demographics to gain their support. The implementation of his policies are right wing, extremist ideologically based, of course, but disjointed, fragmented, hyper-partisan and with the only purpose of acquiring and maintaining power, Canada and Canadians be dam[redacted]ed.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
17 December, 2010
- Ignatieff v. Harper: Morally Right v. Ideologically Right
Submitted: 7:58am, PST, 17 Dec.'10 Winnipeg Free Press
Ignatieff says Liberal message is catching on, Winnipeg North result showed voters choosing hope over Conservative fear
By: Mia Rabson, Winnipeg Free Press, 17/12/2010
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/ignatieff-says-liberal-message-is-catching-on-112054234.html?commentConfirmed=y#comments
Ignatieff: "'yeah we need to be tough on crime but we need to be smart on solutions.'"
Iggy when you're right (morally that is), you're right.
Harper and the Con's only concern regarding crime in Canada is not to solve the problem but to garner votes and support from the extreme right and monger fear
Everything Harper does is partizan, designed to attain and maintain power and Canada and Canadian be dam[redacted]ed.
All Harper policies are ideologically driven to cater to the 33% right-wing extremists that blindly support Harper and the Con, as long as Harper delivers, of course.
The Harper policy of 'tough on crime' is implemented by a hodge-podge of ad-hoc, right-wing ideologically based proposed laws, aimed to maximize partizanism without the least interest on whether it is the right (for the good of Canada that is) thing to do, as opposed to the Right (ideological) thing to do.
Harper has such little concern over his proposed legislation to implement this 'tough on crime' hype, that he very willingly throws the Bills out each time he prorogues Parliament - even his last excuse for proroguing indicate this - to "recalibrate" - clearly indicative of the value Harper places on implementing the 'policy'.
Oh, and did I mention, Harper has no reservations about spending 10's of billions of our hard earned tax dollars, in implementing these disjointed one-off's, without the least indication as to whether it is rational to do this. It may keep Harper in power but it is our values as a nation and children that will pay.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Ignatieff says Liberal message is catching on, Winnipeg North result showed voters choosing hope over Conservative fear
By: Mia Rabson, Winnipeg Free Press, 17/12/2010
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/ignatieff-says-liberal-message-is-catching-on-112054234.html?commentConfirmed=y#comments
Ignatieff: "'yeah we need to be tough on crime but we need to be smart on solutions.'"
Iggy when you're right (morally that is), you're right.
Harper and the Con's only concern regarding crime in Canada is not to solve the problem but to garner votes and support from the extreme right and monger fear
Everything Harper does is partizan, designed to attain and maintain power and Canada and Canadian be dam[redacted]ed.
All Harper policies are ideologically driven to cater to the 33% right-wing extremists that blindly support Harper and the Con, as long as Harper delivers, of course.
The Harper policy of 'tough on crime' is implemented by a hodge-podge of ad-hoc, right-wing ideologically based proposed laws, aimed to maximize partizanism without the least interest on whether it is the right (for the good of Canada that is) thing to do, as opposed to the Right (ideological) thing to do.
Harper has such little concern over his proposed legislation to implement this 'tough on crime' hype, that he very willingly throws the Bills out each time he prorogues Parliament - even his last excuse for proroguing indicate this - to "recalibrate" - clearly indicative of the value Harper places on implementing the 'policy'.
Oh, and did I mention, Harper has no reservations about spending 10's of billions of our hard earned tax dollars, in implementing these disjointed one-off's, without the least indication as to whether it is rational to do this. It may keep Harper in power but it is our values as a nation and children that will pay.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
16 December, 2010
- So, Which Poll Is Right: Harris-Decima or Ipsos-Reid
Submitted: 12:31 pm, PST, 16 Dec.'10 Winnipeg Free Press
The Canadian Press - Federal Tories, Liberals locked in statistical tie, poll suggests, Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press, 15/12/2010
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/federal-tories-liberals-locked-in-statistical-tie-poll-suggests-111935134.html
The two polls were taken fairly closely together with no, as far as I am aware, 'poll moving moment' for any of the parties in between.
Also, the Liberals are polling the same in both polls Nationally. Regionally the polls overall are the same, well within the margins of error, in Ontario and Atlantic regions and almost identical for S-M (Saskatchewan/Manitoba).
The number seem to diverge greatly in Que, BC & Alberta were the differences for the Con are well outside the margin of error, but the differences in numbers for other parties are within the margin of error.
The difference in Que might be explained by the fact that for the HD polls their numbers add up to 95% as opposed to the IR adds up to 99%. In other words the Con number for HR may be a typo and perhaps more like 11+4 = 15 which would bring it within the margin of error with the IP number. This would give the Con's a few more points Federally as well, to say 33 - 34 (est. only).
It seems to me that normally the explanation is the variation in questions/questioning and perhaps the media used. There is also that 1 in 20 where the poll simply doesn't accurately reflect opinion, or the margin of error is huge.
However, you might expect that if it is a problem with questioning, or the 1 in 20, that it would bias the results for all the parties, which does not explain the similarities (almost equal) numbers for the Liberals across the board or the result for all but BC & Alb.
A comparison with other recent polls suggests that the Ipsos-Reid polling number for the Con's is way off and it is the results for BC & Alberta that may very well be causing it. Why would their poll be so wrong for the Con's and not the other party and in BC & Alb and not the other regions.
It would be interesting to have spokes persons for both Pollsters discuss these differences. It would sure help to understand the significance of their polls, as released to the public anyway.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
The Canadian Press - Federal Tories, Liberals locked in statistical tie, poll suggests, Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press, 15/12/2010
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/federal-tories-liberals-locked-in-statistical-tie-poll-suggests-111935134.html
The two polls were taken fairly closely together with no, as far as I am aware, 'poll moving moment' for any of the parties in between.
Also, the Liberals are polling the same in both polls Nationally. Regionally the polls overall are the same, well within the margins of error, in Ontario and Atlantic regions and almost identical for S-M (Saskatchewan/Manitoba).
The number seem to diverge greatly in Que, BC & Alberta were the differences for the Con are well outside the margin of error, but the differences in numbers for other parties are within the margin of error.
The difference in Que might be explained by the fact that for the HD polls their numbers add up to 95% as opposed to the IR adds up to 99%. In other words the Con number for HR may be a typo and perhaps more like 11+4 = 15 which would bring it within the margin of error with the IP number. This would give the Con's a few more points Federally as well, to say 33 - 34 (est. only).
It seems to me that normally the explanation is the variation in questions/questioning and perhaps the media used. There is also that 1 in 20 where the poll simply doesn't accurately reflect opinion, or the margin of error is huge.
However, you might expect that if it is a problem with questioning, or the 1 in 20, that it would bias the results for all the parties, which does not explain the similarities (almost equal) numbers for the Liberals across the board or the result for all but BC & Alb.
A comparison with other recent polls suggests that the Ipsos-Reid polling number for the Con's is way off and it is the results for BC & Alberta that may very well be causing it. Why would their poll be so wrong for the Con's and not the other party and in BC & Alb and not the other regions.
It would be interesting to have spokes persons for both Pollsters discuss these differences. It would sure help to understand the significance of their polls, as released to the public anyway.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
| Harris-Decima The Canadian Press 16 Dec.'10 - Nationally: Con: 31 Lib: 29 NDP: 15 Green: 11 Block: ? Regionally: - Ont Con: 36 Lib: 36 NDP: 14 Green: 12 Block: N/A - Que Con: 11 Lib: 23 NDP: 10 Green: 7 Block: 44 - BC Con: 32 Lib: 21 NDP: 24 Green: 21 Block: N/A - Alb Con: 47 Lib: 24 NDP: 14 Green: 12 Block: N/A - S-M Con: 48 Lib: 25 NDP: 22 Green: 5 Block: N/A - Atl Con: 35 Lib: 42 NDP: 17 Green: 6 Block: N/A | Ipsos Reid Poll Postmedia News and Global TV 10 Dec.'10 - Nationally: Con: 39 Lib: 29 NDP: 12 Green: 9 Block: 10 Regionally: - Ont Con: 39 Lib: 34 NDP: 14 Green: 11 Block: N/A - Que Con: 21 Lib: 22 NDP: 7 Green: 8 Block: 41 - BC Con: 44 Lib: 26 NDP: 18 Green: 12 Block: N/A - Alb Con: 65 Lib: 16 NDP: 6 Green: 12 Block: N/A - S-M Con: 49 Lib: 28 NDP: 19 Green: 2 Block: N/A - Atl Con: 39 Lib: 44 NDP: 14 Green: 1 Block: N/A |
| 2.2 percentage points, 19 times in 20. The margin of error is larger for regional results. | margin of error of 3.1 percentage points. The margin of error for the regional results are: B.C. (9 per cent); Alberta (9.8 per cent); Manitoba/Saskatchewan (12.1 per cent); Ontario (4.9 per cent); Quebec (6.2 per cent); Atlantic (12.1 per cent). |
15 December, 2010
- Harper a Dictator. The Devil, You Say.
Submitted: 7:16am, PST, ("We are unable to add your comment at this time." What's that mean)
"Running party like a war machine is key for Harper", Vancouver Sun December 15, 2010
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=e37686b8-20d8-455d-afc1-615ce4c0a8eb
"Reform-style bottom-up policy making is gone; because of minority Parliaments, parties continually must be election-ready. So, 'the leader has been accorded wide latitude to develop policy for strategic purposes.'
Flanagan laments that election-twitchy federal politicians today have come to resemble 'child soldiers in a war-torn African country: All they know how to do is fire their AK-47s.'"
[referring to statements by Tom Flanaghan]
Sounds dictatorial to me.
But I must say, I'm not too surprised to hear it, given the way Harper conducts himself as PM.
What Flanagan is describing is the common knowledge in the media that everything Harper does is strictly for partizan, and hyper-partizan, purposes, with Canada and Canadians be dam[redacted]ed.
A review of the Harper 'policies' shows a series of one-off's - ad-hoc, disjointed, micro-changes that are then pumped for the PR effect rather than developing a coherent policy. Because there is no underlying general 'good' external to Harper expediency and desire to attain, maintain and wield power, but Harper wants to con Canadians into believing that there is, these policies and statements of Harper often are contradictory and hypocritical. "Tough on Crime" policy is a prime example, so too, the policy (or non-policy) on global warming and the long form census.
The things he does seem to be working from a general plan he is secretive about - dismantling Federalism and abdicating to the Provinces, defending the powers that be in the Oil Sands and racking up huge debts all to the detriment of Canada and all Canadians.
The only restraint Harper has is precipitating a consolidation of the (66% Canadians) Moderate Majority - the 66% Canadians that do not buy into the political extremism of Harper and his Con's, that don't want him or subscribe to what he stands for.
As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and continues to, implement policies that are strictly partizan with no concern for the good of Canada and Canadians.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
"Running party like a war machine is key for Harper", Vancouver Sun December 15, 2010
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=e37686b8-20d8-455d-afc1-615ce4c0a8eb
"Reform-style bottom-up policy making is gone; because of minority Parliaments, parties continually must be election-ready. So, 'the leader has been accorded wide latitude to develop policy for strategic purposes.'
Flanagan laments that election-twitchy federal politicians today have come to resemble 'child soldiers in a war-torn African country: All they know how to do is fire their AK-47s.'"
[referring to statements by Tom Flanaghan]
Sounds dictatorial to me.
But I must say, I'm not too surprised to hear it, given the way Harper conducts himself as PM.
What Flanagan is describing is the common knowledge in the media that everything Harper does is strictly for partizan, and hyper-partizan, purposes, with Canada and Canadians be dam[redacted]ed.
A review of the Harper 'policies' shows a series of one-off's - ad-hoc, disjointed, micro-changes that are then pumped for the PR effect rather than developing a coherent policy. Because there is no underlying general 'good' external to Harper expediency and desire to attain, maintain and wield power, but Harper wants to con Canadians into believing that there is, these policies and statements of Harper often are contradictory and hypocritical. "Tough on Crime" policy is a prime example, so too, the policy (or non-policy) on global warming and the long form census.
The things he does seem to be working from a general plan he is secretive about - dismantling Federalism and abdicating to the Provinces, defending the powers that be in the Oil Sands and racking up huge debts all to the detriment of Canada and all Canadians.
The only restraint Harper has is precipitating a consolidation of the (66% Canadians) Moderate Majority - the 66% Canadians that do not buy into the political extremism of Harper and his Con's, that don't want him or subscribe to what he stands for.
As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and continues to, implement policies that are strictly partizan with no concern for the good of Canada and Canadians.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
14 December, 2010
- Harper fails the Test of Truth - Mardi Tindal, When You're Right Your Right (Morally That Is)
Posted: 10:51 AM on December 14, 2010 & 10:54 AM on December 14, 2010
The PM fails the tests of accountability on climate change, By Mardi Tindal, moderator of the United Church of Canada, Citizen Special December 14, 2010
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/fails+tests+accountability+climate+change/3973241/story.html
Very interesting and well written assessment of Harper and the Con's, albeit a bit understated, leaving a lot to be read between the lines.
"First, the prime minister fails the test of truth. . . . The accuracy of
various future scenarios can be disputed, but there is no longer any serious question that significant change is accelerating "
"Second, leaders must be accountable to the community. . . . It was, in fact, in Alberta where people of every economic sector -- the oil industry included -- shared with me their deep concern about our economic future if we don't understand the need to limit emissions."
"Third, leaders must be accountable to the future. The climate change impacts that we have seen are modest compared to what our children and grandchildren will experience if we don't act. "
If there is more than a mere possibility that our action now will cause serious environmental, economic, social harm to our children and our children's children in the future, whether 20 years - 30 years or 50 years. Then, we must act, and act decisively and to the extent required, now.
When all those countries that have not contributed to Global Warming or benefited from it but suffer the greatest devastating impact of it turn to Canada and see that we not only contributed to it, did nothing to stop it, but in actuality have benefited, we will be lucky if all they do is sue us for trillions in law suits similar to the tobacco suits.
The problem is amplified by the fact that the results of our actions do not manifest disaster now but in the future and it will be our children and our children's children that will be required to pay the price.
Let not our legacy be a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
It would be a breakdown in rationality to suggest that human endeavours do not pollute.
It is also a serious flaw in the application of intellectualism to suggest that this pollution does not have an impact.
In a word, it is a gross, and deliberate, failure of the test of truth
If the grass roots in Alberta are concerned about global warming then exactly whose interests are Harper and the Con's protecting - other than the US Oil conglomerates that are the only ones with a net benefit from the Oil Sands.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
The PM fails the tests of accountability on climate change, By Mardi Tindal, moderator of the United Church of Canada, Citizen Special December 14, 2010
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/fails+tests+accountability+climate+change/3973241/story.html
Very interesting and well written assessment of Harper and the Con's, albeit a bit understated, leaving a lot to be read between the lines.
"First, the prime minister fails the test of truth. . . . The accuracy of
various future scenarios can be disputed, but there is no longer any serious question that significant change is accelerating "
"Second, leaders must be accountable to the community. . . . It was, in fact, in Alberta where people of every economic sector -- the oil industry included -- shared with me their deep concern about our economic future if we don't understand the need to limit emissions."
"Third, leaders must be accountable to the future. The climate change impacts that we have seen are modest compared to what our children and grandchildren will experience if we don't act. "
If there is more than a mere possibility that our action now will cause serious environmental, economic, social harm to our children and our children's children in the future, whether 20 years - 30 years or 50 years. Then, we must act, and act decisively and to the extent required, now.
When all those countries that have not contributed to Global Warming or benefited from it but suffer the greatest devastating impact of it turn to Canada and see that we not only contributed to it, did nothing to stop it, but in actuality have benefited, we will be lucky if all they do is sue us for trillions in law suits similar to the tobacco suits.
The problem is amplified by the fact that the results of our actions do not manifest disaster now but in the future and it will be our children and our children's children that will be required to pay the price.
Let not our legacy be a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
It would be a breakdown in rationality to suggest that human endeavours do not pollute.
It is also a serious flaw in the application of intellectualism to suggest that this pollution does not have an impact.
In a word, it is a gross, and deliberate, failure of the test of truth
If the grass roots in Alberta are concerned about global warming then exactly whose interests are Harper and the Con's protecting - other than the US Oil conglomerates that are the only ones with a net benefit from the Oil Sands.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
13 December, 2010
- The Game Changer - Canadians Stand Up, Be Counted and Give Harper the Boot
1:04 PM on December 13, 2010 The Globe and Mail
What are the chances of a federal election in 2011?, JOHN IBBITSON, Globe and Mail Update, December 13, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/what-are-the-chances-of-a-federal-election-in-2011/article1835161/comments/
The fundamental problem is:
Stephen Harper is a right wing extremist, with all the trappings and implications that go along with such, and always has been. He is kept in power by a core of like minded people that provide the funds and blindly support that keep him in power much to the detriment of Canada and all Canadians (apparently they don't like to be identified as a well distinguished group - go figure - so I refer to them as the 'Silent Minority'*)
Harper and the Con's know this and take the approach that they can do pretty much what they want, 'Canadians be dam[redacted]d', as long as they don't precipitate a consolidation of the Moderate Majority (66% Canadians that do not buy into the political extremism of Harper and his Con's) that don't want him or subscribe to what he stands for.
As long as the Harper policies, and his misleading Canadians, do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and continues to, mislead - 'Canadians be dam[redacted]d'.
'Consolidate the Opposition' is the 'game changer', as you phrase it.
It is not necessarily a single event it can be a build up of a general overall theme.
It is possible that an election, in itself, is the 'game changer', the thing that makes people direct their minds to the political situation and decide Canada has had enough of Harper and his Con's.
Or the forcing of an election where Ignatieff and the Liberals say "enough of Harper and his Con's" thus allowing people to see that he is leadership material and a 'good' replacement for Harper, could be the game changer.
I am not sure Ignatieff and the Liberals waiting another year is a game changer, although it might be for Ignatieff. However, Ignatieff and the Liberals do have a responsibility to Canada and all Canadians not to force an election where Harper could get a majority. Otherwise, if there is a reasonable chance the Liberals could form a minority without the chances of the Con's forming a majority perhaps that is the game definer.
The real game changer:
All Canadians ask themselves if they want their country run, and shaped, by extremist politics then, if not, they, stand up, be counted and consolidate against this extremism.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
*The Silent Minority:
I used to phrase it:
"die-hard core of right wing extremists, epi-centre in Alberta - responsible for 33% in support - that keep Harper in power, and the Con coffers bulging, and to which Harper and the Con's policies cater".
However, I kept getting my posts to Jane Taber's articles pulled - go figure. I changed it to the above and it didn't (not yet anyway). I guess Ms. Taber, or some with influence, does like people referring to them as "right-wing extremists", given that those I am referring to are, I wonder why.
Apparently some have an issue with my using 'extremist' - go figure.
They are extremist, both in their views and their acting upon their views, and I would be surprised if you asked them, they would not be proud of it and actually quite please with the results so far.
That Stephen Harper and the Cons have views based on right wing ideology that lies at the extreme of Canadian social and political views is manifest and very well documented. People who give die-hard, unquestioning support to Harper because of these ideological views, as opposed to whether Harper is good for Canada and all Canadians, can only, and Rightly, be described as 'extremist'.
On the other hand, being silent but working towards their goals in the background, underneath the radar, denying everything for the media, and hiding your true intent and purpose from the rest of the population is certainly a tried and tested political strategy.
It is used by extremists so that the majority are not awakened and, shocked by what they see, give the extremists (Harper) the boot.
Besides denying their roots, another of the methods, is, of course, keeping a tight muzzle on MP's. This creates a serious strain, since a hallmark of extremism, especially right wing who view it as a moral issue, is to be very vocal about their beliefs and how others have failed and how only they have the answers. With Harper and the Con's there are many examples.
What are the chances of a federal election in 2011?, JOHN IBBITSON, Globe and Mail Update, December 13, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/what-are-the-chances-of-a-federal-election-in-2011/article1835161/comments/
The fundamental problem is:
Stephen Harper is a right wing extremist, with all the trappings and implications that go along with such, and always has been. He is kept in power by a core of like minded people that provide the funds and blindly support that keep him in power much to the detriment of Canada and all Canadians (apparently they don't like to be identified as a well distinguished group - go figure - so I refer to them as the 'Silent Minority'*)
Harper and the Con's know this and take the approach that they can do pretty much what they want, 'Canadians be dam[redacted]d', as long as they don't precipitate a consolidation of the Moderate Majority (66% Canadians that do not buy into the political extremism of Harper and his Con's) that don't want him or subscribe to what he stands for.
As long as the Harper policies, and his misleading Canadians, do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and continues to, mislead - 'Canadians be dam[redacted]d'.
'Consolidate the Opposition' is the 'game changer', as you phrase it.
It is not necessarily a single event it can be a build up of a general overall theme.
It is possible that an election, in itself, is the 'game changer', the thing that makes people direct their minds to the political situation and decide Canada has had enough of Harper and his Con's.
Or the forcing of an election where Ignatieff and the Liberals say "enough of Harper and his Con's" thus allowing people to see that he is leadership material and a 'good' replacement for Harper, could be the game changer.
I am not sure Ignatieff and the Liberals waiting another year is a game changer, although it might be for Ignatieff. However, Ignatieff and the Liberals do have a responsibility to Canada and all Canadians not to force an election where Harper could get a majority. Otherwise, if there is a reasonable chance the Liberals could form a minority without the chances of the Con's forming a majority perhaps that is the game definer.
The real game changer:
All Canadians ask themselves if they want their country run, and shaped, by extremist politics then, if not, they, stand up, be counted and consolidate against this extremism.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
*The Silent Minority:
I used to phrase it:
"die-hard core of right wing extremists, epi-centre in Alberta - responsible for 33% in support - that keep Harper in power, and the Con coffers bulging, and to which Harper and the Con's policies cater".
However, I kept getting my posts to Jane Taber's articles pulled - go figure. I changed it to the above and it didn't (not yet anyway). I guess Ms. Taber, or some with influence, does like people referring to them as "right-wing extremists", given that those I am referring to are, I wonder why.
Apparently some have an issue with my using 'extremist' - go figure.
They are extremist, both in their views and their acting upon their views, and I would be surprised if you asked them, they would not be proud of it and actually quite please with the results so far.
That Stephen Harper and the Cons have views based on right wing ideology that lies at the extreme of Canadian social and political views is manifest and very well documented. People who give die-hard, unquestioning support to Harper because of these ideological views, as opposed to whether Harper is good for Canada and all Canadians, can only, and Rightly, be described as 'extremist'.
On the other hand, being silent but working towards their goals in the background, underneath the radar, denying everything for the media, and hiding your true intent and purpose from the rest of the population is certainly a tried and tested political strategy.
It is used by extremists so that the majority are not awakened and, shocked by what they see, give the extremists (Harper) the boot.
Besides denying their roots, another of the methods, is, of course, keeping a tight muzzle on MP's. This creates a serious strain, since a hallmark of extremism, especially right wing who view it as a moral issue, is to be very vocal about their beliefs and how others have failed and how only they have the answers. With Harper and the Con's there are many examples.
10 December, 2010
- Hyper Generation Gap - Oh to Be Young Again
Submitted: 9:45am, PST, 10 Dec.'10 Ekos PoliticsLANDSCAPE FREEZES AS TEMPERATURE PLUMMETS - YOUNG CANADA WOULD ELECT GREEN GOVERNMENT; SENIOR CANADA WOULD NOT ELECT A SINGLE GREEN MP, December 9, 2010, http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2010/12/landscape-freezes-as-temperature-plummets-december-9-2010/
(see also:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/pre-christmas-poll-puts-pox-on-all-parties/article1832563/)
Other than re-enforcing what I have been saying for quite a while now, and I refer to my post of 25 Nov.'10
As I have been saying for quite some time now, these polls can not be properly interpreted without taking into account the die-hard support (manifesting in 33%) for Harper and the Cons.
I refer to this phenomenon as the 'die-hard right-wing extremist, epi-centre in Alberta' factor:
33% points of Harper and the Con's support in a poll can be attributed to the die-hard right-wing extremist*, epi-centre in Alberta factor.
For example, 39.95% (last time: 38%) feel Harper and the Con's are going in the right direction. Keeping in mind that 33.7% (last time: 33.3%) point are made up of people who feel Harper is in the 'Right' direction (i.e. they are supporting Harper because of his right wing ideology, as opposed to consideration of doing good for Canada).
That leaves only 6 (5) points that are perhaps basing their answer on factors other than ideology. This number would have to be tracked for a while to get anything out of this since the margin of error is normally approx 3 points, in other words, the 6 (5) points is statistically significant but barely.
Last time Graves starting to track this aspect - vis.: the “Ideology” heading. However, it seems to have been omitted - Graves, you've dropped the ball a bit here.
Graves suggests that the difference between youth (<25) and senior(>65) is significant. It would be nice to know what "social issues" means.
It may well be that seniors are not thinking environment when they choose it. It also likely not the deficit (presumably that is included in 'fiscal issues' and seniors don't seem to be interested in that much at all)
Presumably financial security, pensions, etc.,are tied up in economy - when you consider the $25 billion reduction in income trusts due to Con policies as well as the huge losses on the market during the Harper watch, you wonder why they consider it a big issue but support the Con's. So what is left (or should I say 'Right').
Then there is health care - which given Harper's background one wonders why seniors would support the Con's - education, support of the sciences and performing arts, etc., etc., etc..
There is, of course, the long gun registry (???) and the long form census and what about Afghanistan and the detainee transfer issue.
Then, don't forget 'tough on crime' - could that be the ticket.
Perhaps Graves could break down "social issues" more next time.
It would be very interesting, and à propos, to know just exactly what it is about Harper and the Con's that seniors like and youth's don't like and whether there is any co-relation.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
(see also:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/pre-christmas-poll-puts-pox-on-all-parties/article1832563/)
Other than re-enforcing what I have been saying for quite a while now, and I refer to my post of 25 Nov.'10
As I have been saying for quite some time now, these polls can not be properly interpreted without taking into account the die-hard support (manifesting in 33%) for Harper and the Cons.
I refer to this phenomenon as the 'die-hard right-wing extremist, epi-centre in Alberta' factor:
33% points of Harper and the Con's support in a poll can be attributed to the die-hard right-wing extremist*, epi-centre in Alberta factor.
For example, 39.95% (last time: 38%) feel Harper and the Con's are going in the right direction. Keeping in mind that 33.7% (last time: 33.3%) point are made up of people who feel Harper is in the 'Right' direction (i.e. they are supporting Harper because of his right wing ideology, as opposed to consideration of doing good for Canada).
That leaves only 6 (5) points that are perhaps basing their answer on factors other than ideology. This number would have to be tracked for a while to get anything out of this since the margin of error is normally approx 3 points, in other words, the 6 (5) points is statistically significant but barely.
Last time Graves starting to track this aspect - vis.: the “Ideology” heading. However, it seems to have been omitted - Graves, you've dropped the ball a bit here.
Graves suggests that the difference between youth (<25) and senior(>65) is significant. It would be nice to know what "social issues" means.
It may well be that seniors are not thinking environment when they choose it. It also likely not the deficit (presumably that is included in 'fiscal issues' and seniors don't seem to be interested in that much at all)
Presumably financial security, pensions, etc.,are tied up in economy - when you consider the $25 billion reduction in income trusts due to Con policies as well as the huge losses on the market during the Harper watch, you wonder why they consider it a big issue but support the Con's. So what is left (or should I say 'Right').
Then there is health care - which given Harper's background one wonders why seniors would support the Con's - education, support of the sciences and performing arts, etc., etc., etc..
There is, of course, the long gun registry (???) and the long form census and what about Afghanistan and the detainee transfer issue.
Then, don't forget 'tough on crime' - could that be the ticket.
Perhaps Graves could break down "social issues" more next time.
It would be very interesting, and à propos, to know just exactly what it is about Harper and the Con's that seniors like and youth's don't like and whether there is any co-relation.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
09 December, 2010
- I wonder if Tom Flanaghan knows Don Cherry
Submitted: 7:34am, PST, 9 Dec.'10 Toronto Star
Toronto woman gets apology from former Harper aide, Dec 8 2010, Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/904035--toronto-woman-gets-apology-from-former-harper-aide#article
On 2 Dec.'10, I posted:
I can't imagine anyone believing that Tom Flanaghan would seriously counsel assassination. This is supported by the suggestion that "Obama should put out a contract or maybe use a drone or something.” - if that isn't being facetious, what is - just ask Bin Landen.
However, it does suggest a mind set that is not middle of the road Canadian. After all 'A man may seye full sooth (truth) in game and pley,' (Chaucer).
Considering that Flanaghan likely had a hand in the development of the Harper 'tough on crime' strategy, this attitude is something that ought to be taken seriously.
Perhaps Flanaghan asks himself "what would Quintus Tullius Cicero say?" before he makes comment.
But reading this ??? - there seems to be something more going on.
PS: I think he's spelling his name wrong.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Toronto woman gets apology from former Harper aide, Dec 8 2010, Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/904035--toronto-woman-gets-apology-from-former-harper-aide#article
On 2 Dec.'10, I posted:
I can't imagine anyone believing that Tom Flanaghan would seriously counsel assassination. This is supported by the suggestion that "Obama should put out a contract or maybe use a drone or something.” - if that isn't being facetious, what is - just ask Bin Landen.
However, it does suggest a mind set that is not middle of the road Canadian. After all 'A man may seye full sooth (truth) in game and pley,' (Chaucer).
Considering that Flanaghan likely had a hand in the development of the Harper 'tough on crime' strategy, this attitude is something that ought to be taken seriously.
Perhaps Flanaghan asks himself "what would Quintus Tullius Cicero say?" before he makes comment.
But reading this ??? - there seems to be something more going on.
PS: I think he's spelling his name wrong.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
08 December, 2010
- Give Harper the Boot - It's Just That Simple
Posted: 10:52 AM on December 8, 2010
Morning Buzz, Can spurned Afghan detainee watchdog topple Tory MP?, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail Update, December 7, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/can-spurned-afghan-detainee-watchdog-topple-tory-mp/article1827850/
10:52 AM on December 8, 2010
____
[Jane Taber? - I wonder if my comment will get pulled, once again. I suspect it has been using the phrase "Harper and the Con's are supported by a core of die-hard right wing, extremist supporters (33% - under review for downward adjustment) epi-centred in Alberta that provide the funds and support that keep him in power. " - go figure???. However, given its 'Rightness' perhaps she, or whoever it is, has other reasons.
Mea Culpa: I sneezed once, ok it was a few times, while writing a post to one of her articles, which just happened to be, in my opinion, some inane thing . . . ah ah aaaa "Lame Saber" chooo, sorry sneezed (see: - Dear Jane Taber . . . ah ah aaaa "Lame Saber" chooo, sorry sneezed, Dec. 12, 2009) .
You be the judge.
_____
“. . . in many cases it’s because of their [Harper and the Con's] policies that are put out there to serve a particular very political and partisan doctrine without explanation to the public ... and certainly with no apparent attempt to achieve any consensus based on understanding.”
Mr Tinlsey when you're right (morally that is) you're right.
He "is worried about a 'pattern of governance' and a 'deterioration of democracy'"
And well should we all.
Stephen Harper is a right wing extremist, with all the trappings and implications that go along with such, and always has been. He is kept in power by a core of like minded people that blindly support him much to the detriment of Canada and all Canadians.
Harper and the Con's know this and take the approach that they can do pretty much what they want as long as they don't precipitate a consolidation of the 66% Canadians that don't want him or subscribe to what he stands for.
All Canadians must ask themselves if they want their country run, and shaped, by extremist politics. If not then they must, stand up, be counted and consolidate against this extremism.
It's just that simple.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Morning Buzz, Can spurned Afghan detainee watchdog topple Tory MP?, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail Update, December 7, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/can-spurned-afghan-detainee-watchdog-topple-tory-mp/article1827850/
10:52 AM on December 8, 2010
____
[Jane Taber? - I wonder if my comment will get pulled, once again. I suspect it has been using the phrase "Harper and the Con's are supported by a core of die-hard right wing, extremist supporters (33% - under review for downward adjustment) epi-centred in Alberta that provide the funds and support that keep him in power. " - go figure???. However, given its 'Rightness' perhaps she, or whoever it is, has other reasons.
Mea Culpa: I sneezed once, ok it was a few times, while writing a post to one of her articles, which just happened to be, in my opinion, some inane thing . . . ah ah aaaa "Lame Saber" chooo, sorry sneezed (see: - Dear Jane Taber . . . ah ah aaaa "Lame Saber" chooo, sorry sneezed, Dec. 12, 2009) .
You be the judge.
_____
“. . . in many cases it’s because of their [Harper and the Con's] policies that are put out there to serve a particular very political and partisan doctrine without explanation to the public ... and certainly with no apparent attempt to achieve any consensus based on understanding.”
Mr Tinlsey when you're right (morally that is) you're right.
He "is worried about a 'pattern of governance' and a 'deterioration of democracy'"
And well should we all.
Stephen Harper is a right wing extremist, with all the trappings and implications that go along with such, and always has been. He is kept in power by a core of like minded people that blindly support him much to the detriment of Canada and all Canadians.
Harper and the Con's know this and take the approach that they can do pretty much what they want as long as they don't precipitate a consolidation of the 66% Canadians that don't want him or subscribe to what he stands for.
All Canadians must ask themselves if they want their country run, and shaped, by extremist politics. If not then they must, stand up, be counted and consolidate against this extremism.
It's just that simple.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
06 December, 2010
- Harper Shun Rationality Like the Plague
Submitted: 7:42am, PST, 6 Dec.'10 CBC News
Ottawa spending billions on consultants: union, December 6, 2010 Julie Ireton, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/12/04/consultants-union.html
Harper, Flaherty, Day, seem to always be deficient in one area when they are they are hyping the purpose of their actions, that is Cost-Benefit analysis.
For Harper who touts himself as a economist by training and the Con party that touts themselves as being fiscally responsible, this deficiency is shocking, not to say hypocritical.
The explanation is that their policies are ideologically based and not economically based, the driving force is what is good for the promotion of Con'ism and keeping Harper in power and not what is good for Canada and all Canadians. They shun rationality like the plague.
The question: Is what Harper doing more cost efficient, all-told, and if it is, is it providing Canadians with a better service, keeping in mind the Civil Service do not simply provide a service, per se, but play special and unique function as part of the social fabric of our Nation, making transparency and non-political interference paramount.
Harper and the Con's are waging a war against the civil service. There are a number of reasons, not the least of which is Harper's need to reduce transparency and increase partisanship.
"According to Liberal Sen. Roméo Dallaire, more famous for his peacekeeping service as a general in Rwanda, a “draconian” current of partisanship now runs through Ottawa, quite unlike anything he has seen in his many years in the capital. Dallaire told Maclean’s the “brutal” atmosphere runs counter to the public-sector ethic of transparency and objectivity."('The war on the civil service', Nancy Macdonald McLean's 3 Feb,'10)
What better way than to get rid of the non-parisan, transparency inducing civil service and replace them with Con supporters. Not only does it 'pay back' and insinuate a group of people who are glad to be partisan but it actually assists in disseminating and implementing, at the most basic level, non-legislated political policies and agendas of our current government that Harper would rather the good people of Canada not be made aware of.
But then there is the optics of getting tough on government spending by pointing to the civil service pensions and engaging in what is essentially union busting.
The bottom line is, simply, we let Harper and the Con's get away with it. For example, one might think that Ottawa region, being a civil service town, would not elect Con's - however, they elect John Baird.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
Ottawa spending billions on consultants: union, December 6, 2010 Julie Ireton, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/12/04/consultants-union.html
Harper, Flaherty, Day, seem to always be deficient in one area when they are they are hyping the purpose of their actions, that is Cost-Benefit analysis.
For Harper who touts himself as a economist by training and the Con party that touts themselves as being fiscally responsible, this deficiency is shocking, not to say hypocritical.
The explanation is that their policies are ideologically based and not economically based, the driving force is what is good for the promotion of Con'ism and keeping Harper in power and not what is good for Canada and all Canadians. They shun rationality like the plague.
The question: Is what Harper doing more cost efficient, all-told, and if it is, is it providing Canadians with a better service, keeping in mind the Civil Service do not simply provide a service, per se, but play special and unique function as part of the social fabric of our Nation, making transparency and non-political interference paramount.
Harper and the Con's are waging a war against the civil service. There are a number of reasons, not the least of which is Harper's need to reduce transparency and increase partisanship.
"According to Liberal Sen. Roméo Dallaire, more famous for his peacekeeping service as a general in Rwanda, a “draconian” current of partisanship now runs through Ottawa, quite unlike anything he has seen in his many years in the capital. Dallaire told Maclean’s the “brutal” atmosphere runs counter to the public-sector ethic of transparency and objectivity."('The war on the civil service', Nancy Macdonald McLean's 3 Feb,'10)
What better way than to get rid of the non-parisan, transparency inducing civil service and replace them with Con supporters. Not only does it 'pay back' and insinuate a group of people who are glad to be partisan but it actually assists in disseminating and implementing, at the most basic level, non-legislated political policies and agendas of our current government that Harper would rather the good people of Canada not be made aware of.
But then there is the optics of getting tough on government spending by pointing to the civil service pensions and engaging in what is essentially union busting.
The bottom line is, simply, we let Harper and the Con's get away with it. For example, one might think that Ottawa region, being a civil service town, would not elect Con's - however, they elect John Baird.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
05 December, 2010
- Harper: What I Say is Right Because It's 'Right', Truth Plays No Part
Posted: 11:21 AM on December 5, 2010
Stimulus cash didn’t create many jobs, budget watchdog concludes, Bill Curry, Globe and Mail, Dec. 02, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/stimulus-cash-didnt-create-many-jobs-budget-watchdog-concludes/article1821112/
You Simply Can't Rely On Harper to Give the Right (Morally, That is) Information.
The one thing I can feel comfortable with is that I shouldn't take anything Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty or any of the Con's for that matter, at face value.
Everything they say is spun, twisted, obscured, obstructed, muddied, be-fogged, etc., etc., etc., for crass and blatant partizan political purposes.
If they don't like what someone says instead of hard, rational proof, they simply attack their integrity, honesty and character.
In stark contrast I can see no motivation for Canada's Parliamentary Budget Office, Kevin Page. He has no partizan interest.
Parliament of Canada Act:
79.2 The mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is to
(a) provide independent analysis to the Senate and to the House of Commons about the state of the nation’s finances, the estimates of the government and trends in the national economy;
In fact, if anything, knowing that anyone who dares say anything that Harper doesn't like is in for a rough ride and has likely numbered their days in the post, the motivation might be to put the binders on, focus his tunnel vision, and see only what Harper wants him to see. And that is, of course, exactly the type of impact the viscous character attacks are intended to have.
So, cheers to Page, for having the moral fortitude to do the job he was appointed to do.
Oh, by the way:
"Kevin Page was appointed Canada's first Parliamentary Budget Officer on March 25, 2008. Mr. Page has 27 years of experience in the federal public service. He has worked extensively in the economic and fiscal community at the three main central agencies, including Finance Canada, the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Privy Council Office. He has also worked for other departments including Fisheries and Oceans, Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada and Human Resources and Social Development Canada.
Mr. Page has a Master’s Degree in Economics from Queen's University and an Honour's BA in Economics from Lakehead and Simon Fraser Universities. "
Perhaps Flaherty could set out his credentials - other than being an right-wing extremist Con, who wants to stay in power, that is.
Page's report is transparent in exactly how he arrive at his results and they are using very intuitively and tried and true methodologies.
Flaherty, on the other and, simply states that his way is scientific and then explains that he is relying on private sector reports, such as The Conference Board of Canada. There was no offer of transparency or methodology so that Canadians may test its credibility.
Wouldn't the scientific approach be to lay everything out in clear and transparent terms for all to understand and decide for themselves, as opposed to what we say is right because it's 'Right' and the truth is irrelevant.
Shouldn't Flaherty, as a public servant and entrusted with Canada's economy, say "thanks Mr. Page, we will consider your report very partizanly carefully".
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Stimulus cash didn’t create many jobs, budget watchdog concludes, Bill Curry, Globe and Mail, Dec. 02, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/stimulus-cash-didnt-create-many-jobs-budget-watchdog-concludes/article1821112/
You Simply Can't Rely On Harper to Give the Right (Morally, That is) Information.
The one thing I can feel comfortable with is that I shouldn't take anything Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty or any of the Con's for that matter, at face value.
Everything they say is spun, twisted, obscured, obstructed, muddied, be-fogged, etc., etc., etc., for crass and blatant partizan political purposes.
If they don't like what someone says instead of hard, rational proof, they simply attack their integrity, honesty and character.
In stark contrast I can see no motivation for Canada's Parliamentary Budget Office, Kevin Page. He has no partizan interest.
Parliament of Canada Act:
79.2 The mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is to
(a) provide independent analysis to the Senate and to the House of Commons about the state of the nation’s finances, the estimates of the government and trends in the national economy;
In fact, if anything, knowing that anyone who dares say anything that Harper doesn't like is in for a rough ride and has likely numbered their days in the post, the motivation might be to put the binders on, focus his tunnel vision, and see only what Harper wants him to see. And that is, of course, exactly the type of impact the viscous character attacks are intended to have.
So, cheers to Page, for having the moral fortitude to do the job he was appointed to do.
Oh, by the way:
"Kevin Page was appointed Canada's first Parliamentary Budget Officer on March 25, 2008. Mr. Page has 27 years of experience in the federal public service. He has worked extensively in the economic and fiscal community at the three main central agencies, including Finance Canada, the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Privy Council Office. He has also worked for other departments including Fisheries and Oceans, Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada and Human Resources and Social Development Canada.
Mr. Page has a Master’s Degree in Economics from Queen's University and an Honour's BA in Economics from Lakehead and Simon Fraser Universities. "
Perhaps Flaherty could set out his credentials - other than being an right-wing extremist Con, who wants to stay in power, that is.
Page's report is transparent in exactly how he arrive at his results and they are using very intuitively and tried and true methodologies.
Flaherty, on the other and, simply states that his way is scientific and then explains that he is relying on private sector reports, such as The Conference Board of Canada. There was no offer of transparency or methodology so that Canadians may test its credibility.
Wouldn't the scientific approach be to lay everything out in clear and transparent terms for all to understand and decide for themselves, as opposed to what we say is right because it's 'Right' and the truth is irrelevant.
Shouldn't Flaherty, as a public servant and entrusted with Canada's economy, say "thanks Mr. Page, we will consider your report very partizanly carefully".
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
04 December, 2010
- Harper Are You Sure Fantino Is Worth The Risk in Cabinet, It Looks Like Fantino Will Have Sufficiently Exposed Himself By The Next Election
Posted: 11:08 AM on December 4, 2010
Fantino lashes out at ‘desperate’ Liberals,
Jane Taber’s Ottawa, Globe and Mail, December 3, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/fantino-lashes-out-at-desperate-liberals/article1824943/
Wait a second, here . . .
Didn't I read:
"Fantino dismissed Trudeau's criticism as, 'promoting the hug-a-thug philosophy.'" (Winnipeg Free Press, 2 Dec)
(That sounds a lot like what Harper, MacKay, and the Con's used to say when someone would raise the issue of human rights abuses in Afghanistan - something amounting to 'Taliban Lovers', if I recall.)
That sure sounded like it was a recent, post by-election, and quoted, statement by Fantino.
This article seems to give the impression that this issue of the significance and importance of the Charter assigned by Fantino is some kind of 'reading-in' by Trudeau from a long past book.
There is a difference.
The thing I am quite amazed about is just how quickly one can see, once Fantino does open his mouth, just how much Fantino fits in with Harper and the rest of the Con's. I am not in the least surprised that Harper might have put him under a gag order during the by-election.
Fantino suggests that the Liberals approaching him to run for the Liberals and then exposing him for what he is is somehow hypocritical.
However, I have very little doubt that Ignatieff once he spoke with Fantino uno-e-uno very quickly determined that Fantino was not moderate, middle of the road, but quite extreme right-wing in his political view and obviously not Liberal material - vis.:
"The Grits confirmed they had spoken to Mr. Fantino but said discussions did not go very far. “Early on, before Maurizio [Bevilacqua, the former Liberal MP in the riding] formally resigned, we spoke to him,” a senior Ignatieff official told The Globe on Thursday night. “But nothing ever gelled on either side. We didn't like him, and he didn't like us. So we both moved on. " (Taber, 26 Nov.'10)
Michael, you got that right (morally, of course).
Fantino: Upholding the Charter of Rights = "promoting the hug-a-thug philosophy."
Talk about being in the right party (and here 'right' does not mean morally, but extreme end of the political spectrum).
Why doesn't Fantino refer to all those innocent citizens who have been accused and convicted of grievous crimes they did not commit but have been and are being forced to spend long terms in jail.
In a tolerant society citizens place a high premium on freedom, civil rights and innocent people not being wrongly accused and convicted. The opposite being a police state.
It is only when society slides down the slippery slope to the extreme that these civil and human rights values get demonized and marginalized.
'Desperate Liberals' ??? - looks like Fantino will have sufficiently exposed himself, every time he opens his mouth, by the next election.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Fantino lashes out at ‘desperate’ Liberals,
Jane Taber’s Ottawa, Globe and Mail, December 3, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/fantino-lashes-out-at-desperate-liberals/article1824943/
Wait a second, here . . .
Didn't I read:
"Fantino dismissed Trudeau's criticism as, 'promoting the hug-a-thug philosophy.'" (Winnipeg Free Press, 2 Dec)
(That sounds a lot like what Harper, MacKay, and the Con's used to say when someone would raise the issue of human rights abuses in Afghanistan - something amounting to 'Taliban Lovers', if I recall.)
That sure sounded like it was a recent, post by-election, and quoted, statement by Fantino.
This article seems to give the impression that this issue of the significance and importance of the Charter assigned by Fantino is some kind of 'reading-in' by Trudeau from a long past book.
There is a difference.
The thing I am quite amazed about is just how quickly one can see, once Fantino does open his mouth, just how much Fantino fits in with Harper and the rest of the Con's. I am not in the least surprised that Harper might have put him under a gag order during the by-election.
Fantino suggests that the Liberals approaching him to run for the Liberals and then exposing him for what he is is somehow hypocritical.
However, I have very little doubt that Ignatieff once he spoke with Fantino uno-e-uno very quickly determined that Fantino was not moderate, middle of the road, but quite extreme right-wing in his political view and obviously not Liberal material - vis.:
"The Grits confirmed they had spoken to Mr. Fantino but said discussions did not go very far. “Early on, before Maurizio [Bevilacqua, the former Liberal MP in the riding] formally resigned, we spoke to him,” a senior Ignatieff official told The Globe on Thursday night. “But nothing ever gelled on either side. We didn't like him, and he didn't like us. So we both moved on. " (Taber, 26 Nov.'10)
Michael, you got that right (morally, of course).
Fantino: Upholding the Charter of Rights = "promoting the hug-a-thug philosophy."
Talk about being in the right party (and here 'right' does not mean morally, but extreme end of the political spectrum).
Why doesn't Fantino refer to all those innocent citizens who have been accused and convicted of grievous crimes they did not commit but have been and are being forced to spend long terms in jail.
In a tolerant society citizens place a high premium on freedom, civil rights and innocent people not being wrongly accused and convicted. The opposite being a police state.
It is only when society slides down the slippery slope to the extreme that these civil and human rights values get demonized and marginalized.
'Desperate Liberals' ??? - looks like Fantino will have sufficiently exposed himself, every time he opens his mouth, by the next election.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
03 December, 2010
- Harper + Fantino = We've Been Con'd again
Submitted: 7:57am, PST, 3 Dec.'10
New Tory MP Julian Fantino under fire for saying charter has helped criminals, Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press
Posted: 2/12/2010 4:36 PM
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/new-tory-mp-julian-fantino-under-fire-for-saying-charter-has-helped-criminals-111222009.html
Fantino: Upholding the Charter of Rights = "promoting the hug-a-thug philosophy."
Wow.
I wonder what traction that would have received if he had uttered this opinion during a all candidate's debate. Likely Fantino will be in another election soon and unable to hide accountability then.
Talk about being in the right party (and here 'right' does not mean morally, but extreme end of the political spectrum).
That sounds a lot like what Harper, MacKay, and the Con's used to say when someone would raise the issue of human rights abuses in Afghanistan - something amounting to 'Taliban Lovers', if I recall.
Why doesn't Fantino refer to all those innocent citizens who have been accused and convicted of grievous crimes they did not commit but have been and are being forced to spend long terms in jail.
And that is what the Charter is all about.
In a tolerant society citizens place a high premium on freedom, civil rights and innocent people not being wrongly accused and convicted. The opposite end being a police state.
It is only when society slides down the slippery slope to the other extreme that these civil and human rights values get demonized and marginalized.
Christie Blatchford (G&M) gave us some insight into Fantino's extremist values a few days before the election - see my post: - "Harper, Fantino - Birds of a Feather", 28 Non.'10
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
New Tory MP Julian Fantino under fire for saying charter has helped criminals, Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press
Posted: 2/12/2010 4:36 PM
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/new-tory-mp-julian-fantino-under-fire-for-saying-charter-has-helped-criminals-111222009.html
Fantino: Upholding the Charter of Rights = "promoting the hug-a-thug philosophy."
Wow.
I wonder what traction that would have received if he had uttered this opinion during a all candidate's debate. Likely Fantino will be in another election soon and unable to hide accountability then.
Talk about being in the right party (and here 'right' does not mean morally, but extreme end of the political spectrum).
That sounds a lot like what Harper, MacKay, and the Con's used to say when someone would raise the issue of human rights abuses in Afghanistan - something amounting to 'Taliban Lovers', if I recall.
Why doesn't Fantino refer to all those innocent citizens who have been accused and convicted of grievous crimes they did not commit but have been and are being forced to spend long terms in jail.
And that is what the Charter is all about.
In a tolerant society citizens place a high premium on freedom, civil rights and innocent people not being wrongly accused and convicted. The opposite end being a police state.
It is only when society slides down the slippery slope to the other extreme that these civil and human rights values get demonized and marginalized.
Christie Blatchford (G&M) gave us some insight into Fantino's extremist values a few days before the election - see my post: - "Harper, Fantino - Birds of a Feather", 28 Non.'10
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
02 December, 2010
- What would Quintus Tullius Cicero say?
Posted: 10:25 AM on December 2, 2010
Ex-Harper adviser regrets ‘glib’ call for retaliatory WikiLeaks assassination, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail, December 1, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ex-harper-adviser-regrets-glib-call-for-retaliatory-wikileaks-assassination/article1820612/
[Jane Taber? - I wonder if my comment will get pulled, once again]
I can't imagine anyone believing that Tom Flanaghan would seriously counsel assassination. This is supported by the suggestion that "Obama should put out a contract or maybe use a drone or something.” - if that isn't being facetious, what is - just ask Bin Landen.
However, it does suggest a mind set that is not middle of the road Canadian. After all 'A man may seye full sooth (truth) in game and pley,' (Chaucer).
And considering that Flanaghan likely had a hand in the development of the Harper 'tough on crime' strategy, this attitude is something that ought to be taken seriously.
Perhaps Flanaghan asks himself "what would Quintus Tullius Cicero say?" before he makes comment.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
PS. Perhaps Flanaghan could comment on the following:
GWilliams 10:13 AM on December 2, 2010 wrote:
"Conservatism is not the doctrine of the intellectual elite or of the more intelligent segments of the population, but the reverse. By every measure available to us, conservative beliefs are found most frequently among the uninformed, the poorly educated, and the less intelligent" (p. 38). McClosky, H. Conservatism and Personality. American Political Science Review, 52, 27-45
(who is GWilliams anyway!)
Ex-Harper adviser regrets ‘glib’ call for retaliatory WikiLeaks assassination, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail, December 1, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ex-harper-adviser-regrets-glib-call-for-retaliatory-wikileaks-assassination/article1820612/
[Jane Taber? - I wonder if my comment will get pulled, once again]
I can't imagine anyone believing that Tom Flanaghan would seriously counsel assassination. This is supported by the suggestion that "Obama should put out a contract or maybe use a drone or something.” - if that isn't being facetious, what is - just ask Bin Landen.
However, it does suggest a mind set that is not middle of the road Canadian. After all 'A man may seye full sooth (truth) in game and pley,' (Chaucer).
And considering that Flanaghan likely had a hand in the development of the Harper 'tough on crime' strategy, this attitude is something that ought to be taken seriously.
Perhaps Flanaghan asks himself "what would Quintus Tullius Cicero say?" before he makes comment.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
PS. Perhaps Flanaghan could comment on the following:
GWilliams 10:13 AM on December 2, 2010 wrote:
"Conservatism is not the doctrine of the intellectual elite or of the more intelligent segments of the population, but the reverse. By every measure available to us, conservative beliefs are found most frequently among the uninformed, the poorly educated, and the less intelligent" (p. 38). McClosky, H. Conservatism and Personality. American Political Science Review, 52, 27-45
(who is GWilliams anyway!)
01 December, 2010
- Vaughan By-election? simple: The Con's were motivated and the moderate majority weren't
Submitted: 7:29am, PST, 1 Dec.'10
Libs, Tories claim victory in byelections but pollster cautions Conservatives, Tim Naumetz, Nov 30, 2010
http://www.hilltimes.com/dailyupdate/view/37
and
Posted: 10:46 AM on December 1, 2010
After by-elections, the parties spin
John Ibbitson, Globe and Mail, Dec. 01, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/after-by-elections-the-parties-spin/article1819793/
In by-elections there seems to be a tendency to vote the candidate, or issue, as opposed to the party, especially if there is a star candidate or important issue. So it is difficult extrapolated the results into and general pattern.
We saw this in the Outramont by-election, of which the NDP afterwards hailed as their big breakthrough in Quebec - which failed to materialize in the next General Election, if I recall.
Significant in the Vaughan by-election was:
"The Conservative vote was almost identical Monday as it was in the 2008 election, on a turnout that was 20 points lower. The Liberals lost nearly 10,000 votes, when compared with the last election, and they will hope that they have more success getting their vote out next time." (Ivison, NP)
In other words, Fantino did not attract votes new voters, Kenny's wooing had no impact in mobilizing new votes from Immigrants. This is despite there being 50% of riding voters born overseas/60% Italian Canadian
The key to the Liberal defeat in Vaughan is, obviously, the low voter turnout - 20 points less than the general Election. That is, it was the lack of mobilization of the Liberal vote that not won it for Fantino but lost it for the Liberals. The Con's were motivated and the moderate majority weren't. This phenomenon was seen in the '08 election where Liberal voters stayed home in droves.
If I were making decisions that mattered regarding such things, I would chose Judy Sgro's assessment over Kenney's. The Liberal ought to take Kenney's efforts in wooing the Immigrant vote very seriously and the Con's may be having success and if they do it may prove very bad for non-Con's in the GTA. But this by-election doesn't verify this.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Libs, Tories claim victory in byelections but pollster cautions Conservatives, Tim Naumetz, Nov 30, 2010
http://www.hilltimes.com/dailyupdate/view/37
and
Posted: 10:46 AM on December 1, 2010
After by-elections, the parties spin
John Ibbitson, Globe and Mail, Dec. 01, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/after-by-elections-the-parties-spin/article1819793/
In by-elections there seems to be a tendency to vote the candidate, or issue, as opposed to the party, especially if there is a star candidate or important issue. So it is difficult extrapolated the results into and general pattern.
We saw this in the Outramont by-election, of which the NDP afterwards hailed as their big breakthrough in Quebec - which failed to materialize in the next General Election, if I recall.
Significant in the Vaughan by-election was:
"The Conservative vote was almost identical Monday as it was in the 2008 election, on a turnout that was 20 points lower. The Liberals lost nearly 10,000 votes, when compared with the last election, and they will hope that they have more success getting their vote out next time." (Ivison, NP)
In other words, Fantino did not attract votes new voters, Kenny's wooing had no impact in mobilizing new votes from Immigrants. This is despite there being 50% of riding voters born overseas/60% Italian Canadian
The key to the Liberal defeat in Vaughan is, obviously, the low voter turnout - 20 points less than the general Election. That is, it was the lack of mobilization of the Liberal vote that not won it for Fantino but lost it for the Liberals. The Con's were motivated and the moderate majority weren't. This phenomenon was seen in the '08 election where Liberal voters stayed home in droves.
If I were making decisions that mattered regarding such things, I would chose Judy Sgro's assessment over Kenney's. The Liberal ought to take Kenney's efforts in wooing the Immigrant vote very seriously and the Con's may be having success and if they do it may prove very bad for non-Con's in the GTA. But this by-election doesn't verify this.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
30 November, 2010
- Do all Those Voting For Harper Think He is Trustworthy, Therein Lies the Question
Posted: 7:50am, PST, 30 Nov.'10,
http://www.nikonthenumbers.com/topics/show/172#comment_44414
Federal Tories continue to lead, Harper advantage as best PM erodes (Nanos Poll Completed November 5th 2010)
There is an issue as to the extent to which these results are biased by the current polarization in Canadian politics.
In other words people answering in favour of Harper and the Con's not because they think Harper is, in actuality, the most trustworthy, competent, best vision, leader, but because they are die-hard supporters of the Con.
This bias is exacerbated by looking only at decided voters, since die-hards are more likely to be decided, almost be definition.
This phenomenon is not observed with support for Ignatieff and may even be the other way around - to choose Ignatieff they have to have a very strong opinion he is trustworthy, competent, best vision.
If you get a handle of this die-hard Harper support, then you may be able to adjust for it. Whether they have a second preference and who that is one thing to look at. Unfortunately Nanos hasn't released the numbers here.
I suggest that 37% of decided voters (or 29.7% overall) is getting to the core of die-hards for Harper and the Con. You can confirm this for yourself.
In that case, 24.1% for Harper's trustworthiness (17.35 overall including undecided) is actually a very bad indication since it represents a significant number (29.7 - 17.35 = 12.3 points overall compare to 24 points; or 1/3 of the die-hards) that indicate they would vote for Harper but do not have a high opinion of his trustworthiness. As suggested above, these may very well all be die-hards. It also supports that those indicating they would vote for Harper are doing so because they are die-hards and not because they think Harper is good for the country. This is supported by there being a much increase undecided.
You do your own math for the rest
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.nikonthenumbers.com/topics/show/172#comment_44414
Federal Tories continue to lead, Harper advantage as best PM erodes (Nanos Poll Completed November 5th 2010)
There is an issue as to the extent to which these results are biased by the current polarization in Canadian politics.
In other words people answering in favour of Harper and the Con's not because they think Harper is, in actuality, the most trustworthy, competent, best vision, leader, but because they are die-hard supporters of the Con.
This bias is exacerbated by looking only at decided voters, since die-hards are more likely to be decided, almost be definition.
This phenomenon is not observed with support for Ignatieff and may even be the other way around - to choose Ignatieff they have to have a very strong opinion he is trustworthy, competent, best vision.
If you get a handle of this die-hard Harper support, then you may be able to adjust for it. Whether they have a second preference and who that is one thing to look at. Unfortunately Nanos hasn't released the numbers here.
I suggest that 37% of decided voters (or 29.7% overall) is getting to the core of die-hards for Harper and the Con. You can confirm this for yourself.
In that case, 24.1% for Harper's trustworthiness (17.35 overall including undecided) is actually a very bad indication since it represents a significant number (29.7 - 17.35 = 12.3 points overall compare to 24 points; or 1/3 of the die-hards) that indicate they would vote for Harper but do not have a high opinion of his trustworthiness. As suggested above, these may very well all be die-hards. It also supports that those indicating they would vote for Harper are doing so because they are die-hards and not because they think Harper is good for the country. This is supported by there being a much increase undecided.
You do your own math for the rest
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)