continued - see below
Posted: 6/30/2010 10:30:47 AM the Globe and Mail
Canada’s economy stalls in April, GDP unchanged as second quarter gets off to slow start, Ottawa - Globe and Mail, Jun. 30, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canadas-economy-stalls-in-april/article1624077/
"A large decline in retail trade and smaller declines in manufacturing and utilities were offset by increases in mining, wholesale trade and, to a lesser extent, the public sector and construction, Statistics Canada said Wednesday."
(CBC News)
tourism-related industries - overnight visitors: -1.7%
Retail trade: -1.7%
Manufacturing: -0.3%
mining and oil and gas extraction: +0.5%
(CBC News)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
30 June, 2010
- Hi-Ho, Hi-Ho, It's Off To Alberta We Go
- Harper's Economic Policies are Great, If You Live In Alberta -
Submitted: 6:55am, PDT, 30 Jun.'10 CBC News
Canada's economy cools in April, Bucks trend of 7 consecutive increases, June 30, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/06/30/april-gdp-canada.html
"'It looks like the growth sprint has ended, at least for now,' said BMO economist Doug Porter, who was expecting a flat showing on the month."
BMO is saying a lot more than this.
On 10 June I posted to cicblog:
Also, is it any real co-incidence that right after the meeting of the Finance Ministers in South Korea on the weekend the Bank of Montreal on 8 June sent out an advisory to certain clients:
"Go to Cash – In Plain English
Summary
We advocate switching out of equity positions and going to cash. . . ."
(see: scribd.com/doc/32708043/Go-To-Cash)
But as long as the oil and gas industry is doing ok, what does it matter if manufacturing and tourism are declining. Nothing if you live in Alberta and are the epi-centre that props up the Harper government.
For people living in Ontario it may not be so good. And, if you are living in Toronto, perhaps the only hope you will have of attracting tourists is hold another G20.
If anyone was wondering the real reason Harper had the G20 moved to Toronto, we can now clearly see. Prentice would surely get the boot in the next election had this happened in his riding. Toronto doesn't vote Con anyway so what Con cares. To add injury to injury, apparently Harper and the Con's are refusing to cover the damage (which the individual owners explain this type of damage is not normally covered by insurance).
Harper, here's a suggestion, next time instead of wasting money on a fake lake, build a fake downtown Toronto to hold the G20 meeting in.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Submitted: 6:55am, PDT, 30 Jun.'10 CBC News
Canada's economy cools in April, Bucks trend of 7 consecutive increases, June 30, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/06/30/april-gdp-canada.html
"'It looks like the growth sprint has ended, at least for now,' said BMO economist Doug Porter, who was expecting a flat showing on the month."
BMO is saying a lot more than this.
On 10 June I posted to cicblog:
Also, is it any real co-incidence that right after the meeting of the Finance Ministers in South Korea on the weekend the Bank of Montreal on 8 June sent out an advisory to certain clients:
"Go to Cash – In Plain English
Summary
We advocate switching out of equity positions and going to cash. . . ."
(see: scribd.com/doc/32708043/Go-To-Cash)
But as long as the oil and gas industry is doing ok, what does it matter if manufacturing and tourism are declining. Nothing if you live in Alberta and are the epi-centre that props up the Harper government.
For people living in Ontario it may not be so good. And, if you are living in Toronto, perhaps the only hope you will have of attracting tourists is hold another G20.
If anyone was wondering the real reason Harper had the G20 moved to Toronto, we can now clearly see. Prentice would surely get the boot in the next election had this happened in his riding. Toronto doesn't vote Con anyway so what Con cares. To add injury to injury, apparently Harper and the Con's are refusing to cover the damage (which the individual owners explain this type of damage is not normally covered by insurance).
Harper, here's a suggestion, next time instead of wasting money on a fake lake, build a fake downtown Toronto to hold the G20 meeting in.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
29 June, 2010
- Let's Get It Straight, Eh
Weapons seized in G20 arrests put on display, Jill Mahoney, The Globe and Mail, 29 Jun.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/weapons-seized-in-g20-arrests-put-on-display/article1622761/
Correction.
Apparently the chain saw and cross bow are not "Weapons seized in G20 arrests" but were included on the table by mistake - based on my take of what the police chief explained in reply to a question about them in his press conference today.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/weapons-seized-in-g20-arrests-put-on-display/article1622761/
Correction.
Apparently the chain saw and cross bow are not "Weapons seized in G20 arrests" but were included on the table by mistake - based on my take of what the police chief explained in reply to a question about them in his press conference today.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Con'd Once Again by Harper
Submitted: 8:11am, PDT, 29 Jun.'10 CBC News
PM hails G20 deficit reduction targets, Fresh protests trigger police crackdown, June 28, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/27/g20-economics.html
Harper and the Con's would claim, no matter what, that the G20 meeting was a success and worth the billions of dollars of Canadian taxpayers' hard earned money. That is the only thing about what Harper says we can be certain of. And as far as the other countries saying the same thing, if someone just spent billions on throwing a private party for you in downtown Toronto, would you insult them on the way out.
No public statement from Harper and the Cons can be taken at face value and must be questioned, as has been demonstrated so many times with the Harper MEP's. The Harper extreme manipulation of the message has become supreme.
In actuality the G8-G20 this last weekend simply re-enforced and institutionalized that all the Countries may do things their own way and in their own time. This is not the advent of a Global Village, but the acknowledgment and assertion of individual sovereignty of each country - vis.:
"While [Harper] insisted the G20 leaders have a common goal of strengthening the world's economy, the prime minister acknowledged that "everything is voluntary" in the statement.
. . .
Statement allows for 'tailored' policies
The communiqué recognizes that not all countries are in the same position, which means the policies could be "tailored" to each country's circumstances.
. . .
Instead, the G20 statement said countries can decide on their own whether to pursue a financial levy or follow "other options."
This attitude of "I want to do it my way", has been Harper's approach all along (in the form of "my-way-or-the-highway") as we have seen with Global Warming and the Bank Tax.
Harper keeps saying that the Bank Tax will be passed on to the consumers, which may be. But I have not seen a place where Harper, Flaherty or any of the Con's have offered a suggestion as to the amount by which goods and services to Canadians would be increased. I suspect it would be 'de minimis'. All I have heard is the extremist, right-wing, ideological "no tax".
Reductio ad Abserdum of Gov't spending, in and of itself, is a basic tenet of the Harper brand of Conservatism as can be seen from the Mike Harris - Preston Manning papers a few years ago. Harper's objective is to 'de minimize' Canadian federal government and abdicate power to individual Provinces.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
PM hails G20 deficit reduction targets, Fresh protests trigger police crackdown, June 28, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/27/g20-economics.html
Harper and the Con's would claim, no matter what, that the G20 meeting was a success and worth the billions of dollars of Canadian taxpayers' hard earned money. That is the only thing about what Harper says we can be certain of. And as far as the other countries saying the same thing, if someone just spent billions on throwing a private party for you in downtown Toronto, would you insult them on the way out.
No public statement from Harper and the Cons can be taken at face value and must be questioned, as has been demonstrated so many times with the Harper MEP's. The Harper extreme manipulation of the message has become supreme.
In actuality the G8-G20 this last weekend simply re-enforced and institutionalized that all the Countries may do things their own way and in their own time. This is not the advent of a Global Village, but the acknowledgment and assertion of individual sovereignty of each country - vis.:
"While [Harper] insisted the G20 leaders have a common goal of strengthening the world's economy, the prime minister acknowledged that "everything is voluntary" in the statement.
. . .
Statement allows for 'tailored' policies
The communiqué recognizes that not all countries are in the same position, which means the policies could be "tailored" to each country's circumstances.
. . .
Instead, the G20 statement said countries can decide on their own whether to pursue a financial levy or follow "other options."
This attitude of "I want to do it my way", has been Harper's approach all along (in the form of "my-way-or-the-highway") as we have seen with Global Warming and the Bank Tax.
Harper keeps saying that the Bank Tax will be passed on to the consumers, which may be. But I have not seen a place where Harper, Flaherty or any of the Con's have offered a suggestion as to the amount by which goods and services to Canadians would be increased. I suspect it would be 'de minimis'. All I have heard is the extremist, right-wing, ideological "no tax".
Reductio ad Abserdum of Gov't spending, in and of itself, is a basic tenet of the Harper brand of Conservatism as can be seen from the Mike Harris - Preston Manning papers a few years ago. Harper's objective is to 'de minimize' Canadian federal government and abdicate power to individual Provinces.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
28 June, 2010
- Harper the Master Strategist - Give them Toronto
Submitted: 7:16am, PDT, 28 Jun.'10 The Toronto Star
G20 editorial: Brutal spectacle failed a city and its people, Steve Russell, 28 June, 2010, The Star
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/829601--g20-editorial-brutal-spectacle-failed-a-city-and-its-people?bn=1#article
G20 fence coming down in Toronto, 28 Ju.'10, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/28/g20-toronto-fence.html#socialcomments
also posted: CTV News, approax. 8:00am, PDT, 28 Jun.'10
Toronto cleaning up from G20 vandalism
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100628/g20-protests-monday-100628/
and, posted: 12:30:26 PM, Globe and Mail
Security or liberty? Toronto comes to grips with a historic crackdown
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/toronto/security-or-liberty-toronto-comes-to-grips-with-a-historic-crackdown/article1621020/
In an interview with CTV's Canada AM Monday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper denounced the violence that he called "pretty disturbing and pretty deplorable."
[Stephen Harper]
"That said, these leaders, we attend summits all the time and we know the unfortunate reality is that these summits attract a certain thuggish criminal element. And that's just the reality," he said.
"Unfortunately, when you have peaceful protests, there are some who use it for other purposes… So leaders understand, we've seen it in other cities, we're going to see it again in the future."
Harper has said that the protests and the ensuing police crackdown explain why the security bill at these summits reached more than $1 billion.
(Toronto cleaning up from G20 vandalism, 28 Jun.'10, CTV News
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100628/g20-protests-monday-100628/)
Harper and the Con's knew that this kind of violent protest, a G8/G20 ritual, would occur, everyone did, it always does. That was the justification of the over billion dollars spend on security. They also knew that this threat was from 'anarchists' and people out to do damage, as opposed to terrorists.
The fence set up did not stop protest it just re-located it. It did not stop the damage, it just re-located it. It was not intended to stop the protest or damage, just re-locate it.
It may have prevented the protestors from getting close to the G20 leaders but it did not stop protesting, and it was never intended to stop this protest. The protestors protest to get coverage in the International media, which an event like this guarantees. If anything the gross amount spent and the fence ensured protests since it brought world attention to security (and fake lakes of course).
If anyone was wondering the real reason Harper had the G20 moved to Toronto, we can now clearly see. Prentice would surely get the boot in the next election had this happened in his riding. Toronto doesn't vote Con anyway so what Con cares. To add injury to injury, apparently Harper and the Con's are refusing to cover the damage (which the individual owners explain this type of damage is not normally covered by insurance).
Harper, here's a suggestion, next time instead of wasting money on a fake lake, build a fake downtown Toronto to hold the G20 meeting in.
A billion dollars on security that could have been reduced to 1/10th (as the French President, Sarkozy, has vowed to demonstrate) and nothing earmarked for the damage that was the very predictable direct result of locating it in downtown Toronto.
If I were a Torontonian, and I was for many years, I would be very upset and place the blame squarely on Stephen Harper and the Con's.
Oh, and did I mention, the only thing that was achieved was that the different countries can do things their own way has been entrenched.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
G20 editorial: Brutal spectacle failed a city and its people, Steve Russell, 28 June, 2010, The Star
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/829601--g20-editorial-brutal-spectacle-failed-a-city-and-its-people?bn=1#article
G20 fence coming down in Toronto, 28 Ju.'10, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/28/g20-toronto-fence.html#socialcomments
also posted: CTV News, approax. 8:00am, PDT, 28 Jun.'10
Toronto cleaning up from G20 vandalism
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100628/g20-protests-monday-100628/
and, posted: 12:30:26 PM, Globe and Mail
Security or liberty? Toronto comes to grips with a historic crackdown
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/toronto/security-or-liberty-toronto-comes-to-grips-with-a-historic-crackdown/article1621020/
In an interview with CTV's Canada AM Monday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper denounced the violence that he called "pretty disturbing and pretty deplorable."
[Stephen Harper]
"That said, these leaders, we attend summits all the time and we know the unfortunate reality is that these summits attract a certain thuggish criminal element. And that's just the reality," he said.
"Unfortunately, when you have peaceful protests, there are some who use it for other purposes… So leaders understand, we've seen it in other cities, we're going to see it again in the future."
Harper has said that the protests and the ensuing police crackdown explain why the security bill at these summits reached more than $1 billion.
(Toronto cleaning up from G20 vandalism, 28 Jun.'10, CTV News
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100628/g20-protests-monday-100628/)
Harper and the Con's knew that this kind of violent protest, a G8/G20 ritual, would occur, everyone did, it always does. That was the justification of the over billion dollars spend on security. They also knew that this threat was from 'anarchists' and people out to do damage, as opposed to terrorists.
The fence set up did not stop protest it just re-located it. It did not stop the damage, it just re-located it. It was not intended to stop the protest or damage, just re-locate it.
It may have prevented the protestors from getting close to the G20 leaders but it did not stop protesting, and it was never intended to stop this protest. The protestors protest to get coverage in the International media, which an event like this guarantees. If anything the gross amount spent and the fence ensured protests since it brought world attention to security (and fake lakes of course).
If anyone was wondering the real reason Harper had the G20 moved to Toronto, we can now clearly see. Prentice would surely get the boot in the next election had this happened in his riding. Toronto doesn't vote Con anyway so what Con cares. To add injury to injury, apparently Harper and the Con's are refusing to cover the damage (which the individual owners explain this type of damage is not normally covered by insurance).
Harper, here's a suggestion, next time instead of wasting money on a fake lake, build a fake downtown Toronto to hold the G20 meeting in.
A billion dollars on security that could have been reduced to 1/10th (as the French President, Sarkozy, has vowed to demonstrate) and nothing earmarked for the damage that was the very predictable direct result of locating it in downtown Toronto.
If I were a Torontonian, and I was for many years, I would be very upset and place the blame squarely on Stephen Harper and the Con's.
Oh, and did I mention, the only thing that was achieved was that the different countries can do things their own way has been entrenched.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
27 June, 2010
- Harper, How About A Pledge to Be Accountable to the People of Canada
Harper pledges no broken promises from this year’s G8 , Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press, Jun. 26, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/news/harper-pledges-no-broken-promises-from-this-years-g8/article1619687/
"As the G8 gathering in Huntsville comes to an end, Prime Minister Stephen Harper implores leaders to be accountable to their final communiqué"
The leaders of the G8 should implore Prime Minister Stephen Harper to pledge to be accountable to the people of Canada. Perhaps they don't because they know the futility of it and when it gets right down to it, who would believe such a Harper pledge.
Here's a great idea.
While we have the leaders of the Western democracies meeting, may be they could give Harper a lesson or two on democracy.
How about David Cameron holding a lecture on "The Basics of the Canadian Parliamentary System".
Perhaps Silvio Berlusconi could hold a "Coalitions 101".
German Chancellor Angela Merkel could be a 'guest' speaker at that one.
Then there's Barack Obama who could speak on progressive government, he could call it "Life after Bush, Picking Up the Pieces".
The Russians could hold a seminar on "How to Be a Real Oil Superpower" (hey, if Harper is going to strut around as if he's the tyrannical leader of an Oil Superpower, he might as well learn from the best and Iran wasn't invited).
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/news/harper-pledges-no-broken-promises-from-this-years-g8/article1619687/
"As the G8 gathering in Huntsville comes to an end, Prime Minister Stephen Harper implores leaders to be accountable to their final communiqué"
The leaders of the G8 should implore Prime Minister Stephen Harper to pledge to be accountable to the people of Canada. Perhaps they don't because they know the futility of it and when it gets right down to it, who would believe such a Harper pledge.
Here's a great idea.
While we have the leaders of the Western democracies meeting, may be they could give Harper a lesson or two on democracy.
How about David Cameron holding a lecture on "The Basics of the Canadian Parliamentary System".
Perhaps Silvio Berlusconi could hold a "Coalitions 101".
German Chancellor Angela Merkel could be a 'guest' speaker at that one.
Then there's Barack Obama who could speak on progressive government, he could call it "Life after Bush, Picking Up the Pieces".
The Russians could hold a seminar on "How to Be a Real Oil Superpower" (hey, if Harper is going to strut around as if he's the tyrannical leader of an Oil Superpower, he might as well learn from the best and Iran wasn't invited).
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper's Ghosts of G8-20's Past, Present & Future
Posted: 6/27/2010 10:49:32 AM The Globe and Mail
Sarkozy says his G8/G20 will cost one-tenth of Canada’s, The Globe and Mail, 26 Jun.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/news/sarkozy-says-his-g8g20-will-cost-one-tenth-of-canadas/article1619637/ Tab 13
"French president makes bold declaration that could come back to haunt him in 2011"
You mean:
"French president makes bold declaration that could come back to haunt Harper and the Con's in 2011"
or whenever the next election is.
This article suggests that perhaps President Sarkozy doesn't know what he's talking about. However, Sarkozy is an experienced politician and leader of one of the top economies. It is not likely that he would make such a statement, so publicly, and at the G20, unless he did. It is clear he had given it considerable though.
Also, it is not hard to imagine holding a G8-20 and coming in with a bill far less than the one Harper, Flaherty, Clement has stuck the Canadian tax payers with. After all every other country in the history of the G8/G20 has. I'm not sure it would take much thought to come in at 1/10th of Harper.
Stephen Harper, next time you get the urge to squander a billion or two of our hard earned tax dollars on throwing a big bash give Sarkozy a call.
Better yet, let Sarkozy, or someone else that holds the interest of their country ahead of crass partizan self-interest, do it.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Sarkozy says his G8/G20 will cost one-tenth of Canada’s, The Globe and Mail, 26 Jun.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/news/sarkozy-says-his-g8g20-will-cost-one-tenth-of-canadas/article1619637/ Tab 13
"French president makes bold declaration that could come back to haunt him in 2011"
You mean:
"French president makes bold declaration that could come back to haunt Harper and the Con's in 2011"
or whenever the next election is.
This article suggests that perhaps President Sarkozy doesn't know what he's talking about. However, Sarkozy is an experienced politician and leader of one of the top economies. It is not likely that he would make such a statement, so publicly, and at the G20, unless he did. It is clear he had given it considerable though.
Also, it is not hard to imagine holding a G8-20 and coming in with a bill far less than the one Harper, Flaherty, Clement has stuck the Canadian tax payers with. After all every other country in the history of the G8/G20 has. I'm not sure it would take much thought to come in at 1/10th of Harper.
Stephen Harper, next time you get the urge to squander a billion or two of our hard earned tax dollars on throwing a big bash give Sarkozy a call.
Better yet, let Sarkozy, or someone else that holds the interest of their country ahead of crass partizan self-interest, do it.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
26 June, 2010
- Harper, Can the Con
What abortion fight?, Norman Spector, Saturday, June 26, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/spector-vision/what-abortion-fight/article1619324/
Tab 1
Well Norman, perhaps you should read some Can news that is not Con news.
"Vancouver Sun, 22 Jun.'10
"Some 56 per cent of Canadians do not agree with Canada's current position of not funding abortions as part of an international maternal-health initiative, the Ipsos Reid survey conducted for Canada.com found.
'You've got Atlantic Canadians, British Columbians, Quebecers and Ontarians on one side of this debate, who believe the abortion issue should be more open and accessible,' Wright said. 'Then you have Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, who are much less supportive and would rather have narrower access.'"
I think the lack of criticism by the leaders during the Summit cannot be used to infer consensus; but, merely an application of the fundamental principle in Int'l diplomacy - vis.:
"if someone is spending a billions dollars on a party for you, don't insult them while you're at the party".
In fact, probably there is a basic formula that can be discerned: that the amount of dissent overtly expressed at one of these Int'l summits is inversely proportional to the lavish treatment.
I realize that such basic principles as 'co-operation' applied to Int'l diplomacy are far outside the comprehension of Stephen Harper and the Con's. But, you simply can not assume that the world leaders serious about co-operation are just as 'in-your-face', 'my-way-or-the-highway' as Harper.
There is another fundamental principle of domestic politics when a government brings in policies that cater to a minority and the majority be damned we can apply - vis.:
"give Harper and the Con's the boot, then change this narrowly supported theo-con policy".
And it will be a simple thing to change (not like policies, like the GST, say, which once installed would be extremely disruptive to eliminate - another fundamental principle that Mulroney knew all to well and to the detriment of Canada)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/spector-vision/what-abortion-fight/article1619324/
Tab 1
Well Norman, perhaps you should read some Can news that is not Con news.
"Vancouver Sun, 22 Jun.'10
"Some 56 per cent of Canadians do not agree with Canada's current position of not funding abortions as part of an international maternal-health initiative, the Ipsos Reid survey conducted for Canada.com found.
'You've got Atlantic Canadians, British Columbians, Quebecers and Ontarians on one side of this debate, who believe the abortion issue should be more open and accessible,' Wright said. 'Then you have Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, who are much less supportive and would rather have narrower access.'"
I think the lack of criticism by the leaders during the Summit cannot be used to infer consensus; but, merely an application of the fundamental principle in Int'l diplomacy - vis.:
"if someone is spending a billions dollars on a party for you, don't insult them while you're at the party".
In fact, probably there is a basic formula that can be discerned: that the amount of dissent overtly expressed at one of these Int'l summits is inversely proportional to the lavish treatment.
I realize that such basic principles as 'co-operation' applied to Int'l diplomacy are far outside the comprehension of Stephen Harper and the Con's. But, you simply can not assume that the world leaders serious about co-operation are just as 'in-your-face', 'my-way-or-the-highway' as Harper.
There is another fundamental principle of domestic politics when a government brings in policies that cater to a minority and the majority be damned we can apply - vis.:
"give Harper and the Con's the boot, then change this narrowly supported theo-con policy".
And it will be a simple thing to change (not like policies, like the GST, say, which once installed would be extremely disruptive to eliminate - another fundamental principle that Mulroney knew all to well and to the detriment of Canada)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- The Harper Shell Game? - I'm in for 2.8
Posted: 8:43am, (Alberta time) National Post
Don Martin: Harper has flair for dramtic, despite not walking with the cool kids, Don Martin June 26, 2010 – 6:00 am
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/26/4973/
I found Jim Fleherty with his explanation as to where the 2.8b (I thought it was more like 4b from Canada over 5 years) is coming from to be vague and obscured to say the least, nothing more than a shell game. Further, the expression on his face gave me the impression that, and to his credit, he could hardly believe anyone would actually buy what he was selling.
The fact of the matter is that whether it is old money or new money, it is money, it is 2.8b, and it is during a time when Harper and the Con's are racking up the largest deficits Canada has ever seen and at the same time calling for fiscal restraint.
Huge deficits and debts both national and individual are the result of spending beyond your means. The solution is, by the very meaning of " spending beyond your means" is to reduce spending and/or increase your means. For governments, it means austerity and increased tax. It also means making people aware of the seriousness of the ramifications of their spending, encouraging people not to spend above their means and, one way, of course, is thru example. Harper, Fleherty and the Con's are failing miserably on these accounts.
Just think, if Stephen Harper simply had canceled the G8-20, there would have been at least half of the 2.8b in 'old money' freed up.
Also these 2.8b are being distributed through a policy - "The veto on using Canadian funds for African abortions" - that simply is a theo-conservative, narrow based policy, contrary to the will of the Canadian people and contrary to the policies of many of the other G8 countries. Perhaps, Harper will argue that excluding abortion is part of the Con austerity program, since this additional procedure would entail increased financial requirements.
One thing that is not mentioned is whether these other countries who are contributing are imposing the same restrictions on their funding and which countries are refusing to provide funding with such restrictions.
Helping families in Africa is a good thing and presumably when Harper and his Con's get the boot, the policy will be opened up to meet the realities and need of these people.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Don Martin: Harper has flair for dramtic, despite not walking with the cool kids, Don Martin June 26, 2010 – 6:00 am
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/26/4973/
I found Jim Fleherty with his explanation as to where the 2.8b (I thought it was more like 4b from Canada over 5 years) is coming from to be vague and obscured to say the least, nothing more than a shell game. Further, the expression on his face gave me the impression that, and to his credit, he could hardly believe anyone would actually buy what he was selling.
The fact of the matter is that whether it is old money or new money, it is money, it is 2.8b, and it is during a time when Harper and the Con's are racking up the largest deficits Canada has ever seen and at the same time calling for fiscal restraint.
Huge deficits and debts both national and individual are the result of spending beyond your means. The solution is, by the very meaning of " spending beyond your means" is to reduce spending and/or increase your means. For governments, it means austerity and increased tax. It also means making people aware of the seriousness of the ramifications of their spending, encouraging people not to spend above their means and, one way, of course, is thru example. Harper, Fleherty and the Con's are failing miserably on these accounts.
Just think, if Stephen Harper simply had canceled the G8-20, there would have been at least half of the 2.8b in 'old money' freed up.
Also these 2.8b are being distributed through a policy - "The veto on using Canadian funds for African abortions" - that simply is a theo-conservative, narrow based policy, contrary to the will of the Canadian people and contrary to the policies of many of the other G8 countries. Perhaps, Harper will argue that excluding abortion is part of the Con austerity program, since this additional procedure would entail increased financial requirements.
One thing that is not mentioned is whether these other countries who are contributing are imposing the same restrictions on their funding and which countries are refusing to provide funding with such restrictions.
Helping families in Africa is a good thing and presumably when Harper and his Con's get the boot, the policy will be opened up to meet the realities and need of these people.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
24 June, 2010
- Harper Information Age
Posted: 6:44pm, 24 Jun.'10 CBCNews
Ottawa aware of foreign influence: sources
Last Updated: Thursday, June 24, 2010 | 6:27 PM ET, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/24/csis-fadden-.html
"The source said Harper has an appetite for intelligence beyond that of his predecessors. Intelligence briefers now routinely provide the prime minister with detailed written reports, in addition to their regular verbal briefings."
I wonder to what extent this carries over to other matter such as reports on real time basis of activities of people like Rahim Jaffer and Helena Guergis. Then there was, Maxime Bernier, the Minister of External Affairs.
As I wrote on cicblog, 26 Apr.'10:
"There is something missing in this puzzle that might be made more palatable if one were to assume that Harper knew something, or things, of a disturbing nature not merely from when thing started to go wrong for Jaffer but before.
When one considers the very tight rein Harper has held, right from the start, on his Caucus and especially his Ministers and the very centralized control (it is typical in the Harperiavellian style of running the Administration and the Con Party to employ the use of 'spies' or 'ears-and-eyes' to keep a watch on what is going on and it would not be surprising if that were also the case, but not matter what people would surely be tripping over each other to inform Harper and get in his good books - that's just how these things work in such context, and Harper's style makes it easy to believe he makes full use of such methods), it hard to imagine that if Geurgis and Jaffer were transgressing that Harper would not learn about it and quickly. This is especially for something like the letter Guergis allegedly sent to the local council. What is the likelihood that this letter didn't get back to the higher echelons of the Con party and thus Harper."
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Ottawa aware of foreign influence: sources
Last Updated: Thursday, June 24, 2010 | 6:27 PM ET, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/24/csis-fadden-.html
"The source said Harper has an appetite for intelligence beyond that of his predecessors. Intelligence briefers now routinely provide the prime minister with detailed written reports, in addition to their regular verbal briefings."
I wonder to what extent this carries over to other matter such as reports on real time basis of activities of people like Rahim Jaffer and Helena Guergis. Then there was, Maxime Bernier, the Minister of External Affairs.
As I wrote on cicblog, 26 Apr.'10:
"There is something missing in this puzzle that might be made more palatable if one were to assume that Harper knew something, or things, of a disturbing nature not merely from when thing started to go wrong for Jaffer but before.
When one considers the very tight rein Harper has held, right from the start, on his Caucus and especially his Ministers and the very centralized control (it is typical in the Harperiavellian style of running the Administration and the Con Party to employ the use of 'spies' or 'ears-and-eyes' to keep a watch on what is going on and it would not be surprising if that were also the case, but not matter what people would surely be tripping over each other to inform Harper and get in his good books - that's just how these things work in such context, and Harper's style makes it easy to believe he makes full use of such methods), it hard to imagine that if Geurgis and Jaffer were transgressing that Harper would not learn about it and quickly. This is especially for something like the letter Guergis allegedly sent to the local council. What is the likelihood that this letter didn't get back to the higher echelons of the Con party and thus Harper."
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
23 June, 2010
- Lest Our Children Regret Our Turn at the Helm
Submitted: 10:45am, PDT, 23 Jun.'10 CBC News
CSIS claim's timing under scrutiny, Last Updated: Wednesday, June 23, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2010/06/23/fadden-csis-spy.html
How about Harper and the Neo-Con, Republican influence from the US. The real extent of the influence might be worth investigating.
The impact on Harper and his polices is pretty straight forward, although Harper and the Con's try obscuration, obstruction, obfuscation to hide it. It's insidious and a lot of people think that because it's from the US, it's ok.
However, Canadians made the decision not to be American generations ago.
And, with leaders like Lester B. Pearson, and Pierre Trudeau, our parents' generation also turned away from being subservient to the big International Corporations such as the Oil Industry and stubbornly persisted to base our policies on what is in the best interests of Canadians and not on what maximizes the profits of these Internationals based in the US.
Those who have held stewardship before us worked and sacrificed hard to build, and were vigilant to maintain, a nation, separate unto ourselves, for which we can all be proud. Let us do the same and hand off to our children a Canada that we all can be proud of and not something for which our children will regret that we were ever given a chance at the helm.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
CSIS claim's timing under scrutiny, Last Updated: Wednesday, June 23, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2010/06/23/fadden-csis-spy.html
How about Harper and the Neo-Con, Republican influence from the US. The real extent of the influence might be worth investigating.
The impact on Harper and his polices is pretty straight forward, although Harper and the Con's try obscuration, obstruction, obfuscation to hide it. It's insidious and a lot of people think that because it's from the US, it's ok.
However, Canadians made the decision not to be American generations ago.
And, with leaders like Lester B. Pearson, and Pierre Trudeau, our parents' generation also turned away from being subservient to the big International Corporations such as the Oil Industry and stubbornly persisted to base our policies on what is in the best interests of Canadians and not on what maximizes the profits of these Internationals based in the US.
Those who have held stewardship before us worked and sacrificed hard to build, and were vigilant to maintain, a nation, separate unto ourselves, for which we can all be proud. Let us do the same and hand off to our children a Canada that we all can be proud of and not something for which our children will regret that we were ever given a chance at the helm.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
22 June, 2010
- It's Just That Simply
Here's a campaign slogan.
"Help all Canadians according to their need and ask all Canadians to help according to their ability"
Oh, and did I mention, "Give Harper the Boot - It's Just That Simple"
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
"Help all Canadians according to their need and ask all Canadians to help according to their ability"
Oh, and did I mention, "Give Harper the Boot - It's Just That Simple"
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper Slipping in the Polls? so the is Divine Intervention
Submitted: 7:22am, PDT, 22 Jun.'10
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1188309.html
The angry politics of stalemate in Ottawa, Dan Leger, 21 Jun.'10
Stephen Harper and the Con's core support is 33%, it seems to me. 30% is within the statistical margin of error. However, I would suggest that this may be one of those polls that is 'in error'.
On the other hand, if it really indicates a shift in core support for the Con's this would be quite significant and well worth the effort to track the cause.
For example, "at 42 per cent in Quebec, the Bloc is up five points from the last campaign."
(Hébert: Deadlocked polls are becoming the federal norm, Mon Jun 21
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/826165--hebert-deadlocked-polls-are-becoming-the-federal-norm)
The Liberal numbers seem to be the same, if not up a bit. The Con's losing traction in Quebec would be interesting. Of course, with Harper disenfranchising 1.4 million votes in Quebec, it would not be surprising.
On the other hand perhaps it is because of the outrageous spending on the G8-20 by Harper. In that case, what about the 16 billion for "next generation" fighter jets that Harper is spending (and leaving a corresponding increased debt of 16billion to be picked up by the "next generation" Canadians).
Or, how about the Kevin Page, Parliamentary Budgetary Watchdog, in his analysis of a single piece of legislation (ending so-called two-for-one imprisonment credits) that came into force in February, is expected to put the price tag at approx 10 billion. (Page is also expected to assert that the government blocked him in his attempts to secure data - surprise, surprise).
(New crime law expected to cost billions, By JANICE TIBBETTS, Canwest News Service,
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/crime+expected+cost+billions/3184933/story.html)
This is despite that Harper and the Con's apparently have not factual basis that such change has any positive effects on crime, but is simply base on their philosophy (Van Loans).
Harper and the Con’s have made “getting tough on Crime” one of their central policies.
However, as it turns out they have nothing to support their position to say that it is in the best interest of all Canadians. In fact, all the evidence points to the exact opposite. This is illustrated by the Report just released by Graham Stewart, Prof Michael Jackson, et al.
The response by the Con’s, “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan (to CBC).
In other words, the report is correct, Harper and the Cons are totally disregarding the facts and basing their position on shear Ideology, extreme right wing at that.
That is, they are not basing it on what is best for Canadians, but on irrational fear mongering and self-righteous hypocrisy, dragging us back to the Dark Ages with hints of the Inquisition.
This was underlying the statement by Ian Brodie, Harper's former chief of staff, when he explained that
“Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”;
as well as, what Tom Flanagan, a former Harper adviser, said about the Harper attack ads on Ignatieff rebuilding the coalition after an election,
“It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible and it strikes me as plausible.”
It is becoming more and more open that this is how Harper and the Con’s operate. No regard for what the realities are and what is in the best interest of all Canadians given those realities. But shear right wing extremist ideology.
‘Irrational Fear Mongering vs. rational, open debate’ - this is a fundamental wedge issue between Harper and his Cons and the Liberal Party.
(cicblog, 26Sep.'09)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1188309.html
The angry politics of stalemate in Ottawa, Dan Leger, 21 Jun.'10
Stephen Harper and the Con's core support is 33%, it seems to me. 30% is within the statistical margin of error. However, I would suggest that this may be one of those polls that is 'in error'.
On the other hand, if it really indicates a shift in core support for the Con's this would be quite significant and well worth the effort to track the cause.
For example, "at 42 per cent in Quebec, the Bloc is up five points from the last campaign."
(Hébert: Deadlocked polls are becoming the federal norm, Mon Jun 21
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/826165--hebert-deadlocked-polls-are-becoming-the-federal-norm)
The Liberal numbers seem to be the same, if not up a bit. The Con's losing traction in Quebec would be interesting. Of course, with Harper disenfranchising 1.4 million votes in Quebec, it would not be surprising.
On the other hand perhaps it is because of the outrageous spending on the G8-20 by Harper. In that case, what about the 16 billion for "next generation" fighter jets that Harper is spending (and leaving a corresponding increased debt of 16billion to be picked up by the "next generation" Canadians).
Or, how about the Kevin Page, Parliamentary Budgetary Watchdog, in his analysis of a single piece of legislation (ending so-called two-for-one imprisonment credits) that came into force in February, is expected to put the price tag at approx 10 billion. (Page is also expected to assert that the government blocked him in his attempts to secure data - surprise, surprise).
(New crime law expected to cost billions, By JANICE TIBBETTS, Canwest News Service,
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/crime+expected+cost+billions/3184933/story.html)
This is despite that Harper and the Con's apparently have not factual basis that such change has any positive effects on crime, but is simply base on their philosophy (Van Loans).
Harper and the Con’s have made “getting tough on Crime” one of their central policies.
However, as it turns out they have nothing to support their position to say that it is in the best interest of all Canadians. In fact, all the evidence points to the exact opposite. This is illustrated by the Report just released by Graham Stewart, Prof Michael Jackson, et al.
The response by the Con’s, “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan (to CBC).
In other words, the report is correct, Harper and the Cons are totally disregarding the facts and basing their position on shear Ideology, extreme right wing at that.
That is, they are not basing it on what is best for Canadians, but on irrational fear mongering and self-righteous hypocrisy, dragging us back to the Dark Ages with hints of the Inquisition.
This was underlying the statement by Ian Brodie, Harper's former chief of staff, when he explained that
“Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”;
as well as, what Tom Flanagan, a former Harper adviser, said about the Harper attack ads on Ignatieff rebuilding the coalition after an election,
“It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible and it strikes me as plausible.”
It is becoming more and more open that this is how Harper and the Con’s operate. No regard for what the realities are and what is in the best interest of all Canadians given those realities. But shear right wing extremist ideology.
‘Irrational Fear Mongering vs. rational, open debate’ - this is a fundamental wedge issue between Harper and his Cons and the Liberal Party.
(cicblog, 26Sep.'09)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
21 June, 2010
- All Canadians Must Stand Up and Defend Our Democracy From Harper and His Con's
Posted: 6/21/2010 10:55:29 AM The Globe and Mail
Harper’s message control is unprecedented, critics say
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harpers-message-control-is-unprecedented-critics-say/article1594049/
Tab 84
Stephen Harper and the Con's have built the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in recent history.
This is just one aspect of it.
It is insidious, undermines democracy and, again as with many other highly partizan activities by Harper, we the tax payers are paying for it. Cute, real cute.
However, we Canadians have no one to blame but ourselves. We are the ones that keep Harper in office.
Harper and his Con's are importing the Republican style of politics (and if the truth be known, they most likely are giving direct input, as opposed to people like Tom Flanagan who has actually made Alberta, his home). Americans counter-balance this by their fiercely defence of democracy and stand up and make sure they are counted. If Canadians are not prepared to stand up and protect our democracy we will have to accept Harper's form of tyrannical rule.
This article represents one of those occasions where the media is shining a light on a dark, very dark, corner of the Harper regime.
It is not much of a surprise to suggest that we ought not to trust a word coming from the mouth of Harper or any of the Con's.
However, this article suggest that we may not be able to rely on anything that comes from anyone in the Bureaucracy, civil service or any organization in Canada that relies on funding from the Federal Government.
This is outrageous and very important.
For example, all those 'numbers' released by Stats Canada, to what extent are they "morph'd" by the Con's (we know that the 'numbers' that come out of the Finance Department must be taken with a grain of salt as parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page has demonstrated so often). Given that they seem to indicate that Harper and the Con's are doing a good job, when viewed in the context of this article and the extreme extent that Harper goes to control and pervert the message, I think it would be wise to question them.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Harper’s message control is unprecedented, critics say
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harpers-message-control-is-unprecedented-critics-say/article1594049/
Tab 84
Stephen Harper and the Con's have built the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in recent history.
This is just one aspect of it.
It is insidious, undermines democracy and, again as with many other highly partizan activities by Harper, we the tax payers are paying for it. Cute, real cute.
However, we Canadians have no one to blame but ourselves. We are the ones that keep Harper in office.
Harper and his Con's are importing the Republican style of politics (and if the truth be known, they most likely are giving direct input, as opposed to people like Tom Flanagan who has actually made Alberta, his home). Americans counter-balance this by their fiercely defence of democracy and stand up and make sure they are counted. If Canadians are not prepared to stand up and protect our democracy we will have to accept Harper's form of tyrannical rule.
This article represents one of those occasions where the media is shining a light on a dark, very dark, corner of the Harper regime.
It is not much of a surprise to suggest that we ought not to trust a word coming from the mouth of Harper or any of the Con's.
However, this article suggest that we may not be able to rely on anything that comes from anyone in the Bureaucracy, civil service or any organization in Canada that relies on funding from the Federal Government.
This is outrageous and very important.
For example, all those 'numbers' released by Stats Canada, to what extent are they "morph'd" by the Con's (we know that the 'numbers' that come out of the Finance Department must be taken with a grain of salt as parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page has demonstrated so often). Given that they seem to indicate that Harper and the Con's are doing a good job, when viewed in the context of this article and the extreme extent that Harper goes to control and pervert the message, I think it would be wise to question them.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Give Harper and His Con's The Boot, It's Just That Simple
Posted: 6/21/2010 9:59:50 AM the Globe and Mail
Coalition: a false calculation. The Liberals would be foolish enough to evacuate the centre by merging with the NDP, Lysiane Gagnon, Globe and Mail, Jun. 18, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/coalition-a-false-calculation/article1609930/
Tab 4
Just exactly what's wrong with the approx 2/3rd of Canadian that voted against Harper getting together and giving Harper and his Con's the boot. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Stephen Harper is, once again, applying the Harperavellian Fundamental Principle: "it doesn't have to be true, it only has to sound plausible", to formulate this corollary: 'Losers don't get to form coalitions'.
If I recall, the Liberal-Democrats' first attempt at a coalition was with the Labour Party. That's right the other 'loser'.
Clearly they were under the impression that had they come to an agreement they would have assumed the government and from what I saw everyone else in Britain seemed to be operating under the same understanding.
I don't recall anyone in England suggesting that it would be unconstitutional for the two losers to form a coalition and assume the government.
I also don't recall Harper making any comments along the lines that that would have been an illegal government, or un-holy alliance, or that Canada would not have recognized it if they had assumed power. Perhaps Harper could explain this non-sequitur.
That's a good question for Harper, do his comments mean that had the Liberal-Democrats and the Labour Parties formed a coalition, would Harper refuse to recognize this government of losers as being illegal or 'un-holy'.
Anyone who suggests that the Parties that don't finish first getting together to form a government is somehow illegal or improper simply does not understand the Parliamentary system, are confusing our way of government with that in the US (in which case perhaps they could explain what would happen if there were three major parties in the US and not two) or deliberately misleading and distorting to promote their own self-interests.
The reality is that it doesn't matter what position the Liberals take, Harper and the Con's are going to run hard on this 'un-holy' alliance concept, in all its manifestations. The Harper strategy is to aim at the 33% die-hard Con supporters whose epi-centre is in Alberta and, as long as everyone else is divided he is guaranteed to end up with more seats (so, of course, only 'winners' get to form the government). Then, if there is an additional sprinkling here and there, who knows.
The solution is either Canada has only two parties or people vote as if there were only two parties. It's just that simple.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Coalition: a false calculation. The Liberals would be foolish enough to evacuate the centre by merging with the NDP, Lysiane Gagnon, Globe and Mail, Jun. 18, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/coalition-a-false-calculation/article1609930/
Tab 4
Just exactly what's wrong with the approx 2/3rd of Canadian that voted against Harper getting together and giving Harper and his Con's the boot. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Stephen Harper is, once again, applying the Harperavellian Fundamental Principle: "it doesn't have to be true, it only has to sound plausible", to formulate this corollary: 'Losers don't get to form coalitions'.
If I recall, the Liberal-Democrats' first attempt at a coalition was with the Labour Party. That's right the other 'loser'.
Clearly they were under the impression that had they come to an agreement they would have assumed the government and from what I saw everyone else in Britain seemed to be operating under the same understanding.
I don't recall anyone in England suggesting that it would be unconstitutional for the two losers to form a coalition and assume the government.
I also don't recall Harper making any comments along the lines that that would have been an illegal government, or un-holy alliance, or that Canada would not have recognized it if they had assumed power. Perhaps Harper could explain this non-sequitur.
That's a good question for Harper, do his comments mean that had the Liberal-Democrats and the Labour Parties formed a coalition, would Harper refuse to recognize this government of losers as being illegal or 'un-holy'.
Anyone who suggests that the Parties that don't finish first getting together to form a government is somehow illegal or improper simply does not understand the Parliamentary system, are confusing our way of government with that in the US (in which case perhaps they could explain what would happen if there were three major parties in the US and not two) or deliberately misleading and distorting to promote their own self-interests.
The reality is that it doesn't matter what position the Liberals take, Harper and the Con's are going to run hard on this 'un-holy' alliance concept, in all its manifestations. The Harper strategy is to aim at the 33% die-hard Con supporters whose epi-centre is in Alberta and, as long as everyone else is divided he is guaranteed to end up with more seats (so, of course, only 'winners' get to form the government). Then, if there is an additional sprinkling here and there, who knows.
The solution is either Canada has only two parties or people vote as if there were only two parties. It's just that simple.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
19 June, 2010
- The Harper Doctrine: To the Winner Go the Spoils
Posted: 10:32 am, 10:38 & 11:20am, 19 June, 2010 The Toronto Star
Million-dollar-a-minute summit worth it, insists Stephen Harper aide, Les Whittington, 2010/06/19
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/825508--million-dollar-a-minute-summit-worth-it-insists-stephen-harper-aide?bn=1#article
Wouldn't it be cheaper to hold the G8-20 on the International Space Station. The Russians charge, what, $20m per person and I am sure they would give a volume discount. And, I am sure the world leaders would bond better in such cozy quarters.
However, I wouldn't ask Stephen Harper or any of the Con's to negotiate it - they seem to have a penchant for spending Canadians tax dollars with free abandon and for partizan purposes, as if it were money given to them. It seems that it is built right into Conservative values when you compare Mulroney, Bush, Reagan, etc. - perhaps, it's the laissez faire corollary: 'to the winner go the spoils'. Tom Flanagan once compared the Harper style of politics to the ancient Romans, he is right, in a extremist, right-wing fashion, and this doctrine 'to the winner go the spoils' is but one example.
Dimitri Soudas: “So that is exactly why we need these type of summits, that is exactly why leaders sitting around the table face-to-face—and not through Twitter, Skype or video-conferencing—will eventually produce more results.”
Soudas, and Harper, Baird, Clement, Flaherty, are throwing this out there like it is a self evident truth. For a couple billion of Canadians' hard earned tax dollars, I need more than Harper and the Con's simply saying it true, especially give Harper's dismal, to say the least, track record or being straight forward, transparent and conducting affairs in a non-partizan, statesmanlike fashion with the good of all Canadians at heart.
Second, this is obviously a very carefully drafted, pre-meditated message, representing Harper and the Con's view on the matter.
However, the best they can do is say that meeting face-to-face will "eventually produce more results".
Harper is obviously conceding that " Twitter, Skype or video-conferencing" will produce results, and comparable to those meet face-to-face. The only difference they dare suggest is that "eventually" face-to-face will produce more.
Well how about if they meet on a monthly basis on "Twitter, Skype or video-conferencing". Canada could pledge a couple million and encourage the other G20 countries to throw in a couple million each and they could come up with a pretty good connection. Now that I can see spending the money on. They could even download a video or two and order a pizza, at their own expense.
Further, 'results' for 'results' sake only is simply folly.
And meeting face to face doesn't always produce good results. And, in fact, perhaps Soudas, or Harper, could give an example of when it did. Oh, yah, I forgot the UN IPCC 2007 climate report, the one that Harper and the Con's with their power base in Alberta and sourced in the tar sands, along with just about every other Oil and gas interest in the world, so vehemently attack.
We want good results, results that are a benefit to not just all Canadians but everyone in all the countries. After all, we are all in this together. Harper going his own way on all the important issues, such as Global Warming and Maternal Health, contrary to the other G8-10 countries, and contrary to Canadians as well, only encourages unilateral, everyone in it for themselves, approach and give the other countries an excuse not to 'come together' in the biblical sense, on these and other important issues. Thus, totally undermining the purpose of these meetings.
Good results are not the result of one-off, face-to-face, highly politicized photo opp's. They are produced by long laborious rational analysis of the circumstances, serious and sober consideration of all interests and viable alternatives, and on going discussion in an open and transparent fashion, in the context of the best interests for everyone. All of which is totally foreign to Harper and his Con's and in fact is simply "a different philosophy" (to put it in the words of Van Loan).
Canadians are being Con'd and we should stand up, be counted, and say enough-is-enough.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Million-dollar-a-minute summit worth it, insists Stephen Harper aide, Les Whittington, 2010/06/19
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/825508--million-dollar-a-minute-summit-worth-it-insists-stephen-harper-aide?bn=1#article
Wouldn't it be cheaper to hold the G8-20 on the International Space Station. The Russians charge, what, $20m per person and I am sure they would give a volume discount. And, I am sure the world leaders would bond better in such cozy quarters.
However, I wouldn't ask Stephen Harper or any of the Con's to negotiate it - they seem to have a penchant for spending Canadians tax dollars with free abandon and for partizan purposes, as if it were money given to them. It seems that it is built right into Conservative values when you compare Mulroney, Bush, Reagan, etc. - perhaps, it's the laissez faire corollary: 'to the winner go the spoils'. Tom Flanagan once compared the Harper style of politics to the ancient Romans, he is right, in a extremist, right-wing fashion, and this doctrine 'to the winner go the spoils' is but one example.
Dimitri Soudas: “So that is exactly why we need these type of summits, that is exactly why leaders sitting around the table face-to-face—and not through Twitter, Skype or video-conferencing—will eventually produce more results.”
Soudas, and Harper, Baird, Clement, Flaherty, are throwing this out there like it is a self evident truth. For a couple billion of Canadians' hard earned tax dollars, I need more than Harper and the Con's simply saying it true, especially give Harper's dismal, to say the least, track record or being straight forward, transparent and conducting affairs in a non-partizan, statesmanlike fashion with the good of all Canadians at heart.
Second, this is obviously a very carefully drafted, pre-meditated message, representing Harper and the Con's view on the matter.
However, the best they can do is say that meeting face-to-face will "eventually produce more results".
Harper is obviously conceding that " Twitter, Skype or video-conferencing" will produce results, and comparable to those meet face-to-face. The only difference they dare suggest is that "eventually" face-to-face will produce more.
Well how about if they meet on a monthly basis on "Twitter, Skype or video-conferencing". Canada could pledge a couple million and encourage the other G20 countries to throw in a couple million each and they could come up with a pretty good connection. Now that I can see spending the money on. They could even download a video or two and order a pizza, at their own expense.
Further, 'results' for 'results' sake only is simply folly.
And meeting face to face doesn't always produce good results. And, in fact, perhaps Soudas, or Harper, could give an example of when it did. Oh, yah, I forgot the UN IPCC 2007 climate report, the one that Harper and the Con's with their power base in Alberta and sourced in the tar sands, along with just about every other Oil and gas interest in the world, so vehemently attack.
We want good results, results that are a benefit to not just all Canadians but everyone in all the countries. After all, we are all in this together. Harper going his own way on all the important issues, such as Global Warming and Maternal Health, contrary to the other G8-10 countries, and contrary to Canadians as well, only encourages unilateral, everyone in it for themselves, approach and give the other countries an excuse not to 'come together' in the biblical sense, on these and other important issues. Thus, totally undermining the purpose of these meetings.
Good results are not the result of one-off, face-to-face, highly politicized photo opp's. They are produced by long laborious rational analysis of the circumstances, serious and sober consideration of all interests and viable alternatives, and on going discussion in an open and transparent fashion, in the context of the best interests for everyone. All of which is totally foreign to Harper and his Con's and in fact is simply "a different philosophy" (to put it in the words of Van Loan).
Canadians are being Con'd and we should stand up, be counted, and say enough-is-enough.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
17 June, 2010
- Harper and all you Con's, Canadians Are Cheesed Off
submitted: 7:34am, PDT, 17 June, 2010 & 9:51am, PDT, 17 June, 2010 CBC.CA News
G8 funds flood Clement's riding: Liberals, Industry minister 'cheesed off' by pork-barrelling accusations, June 16, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/16/g8-g20-spending-liberals-clement.html
Industry Minister Tony Clement said:" I'm cheesed off because I know the people in my riding don't deserve the kind of partisan attacks the Liberals have been doing,"
[Angus Reid Poll: 78 per cent claiming that the expected expenditure of $1 billion is unjustified, with 11% uncertain and 11% saying it's justified, 11 - 12 Jun.'10]
I wonder what the % is for Clement's riding. I think I would be quite surprised if they were not just as 'cheesed off' by outrageous, partizan spending of our hard earned tax dollars under the guise of the G8-20. If I lived there I would be embarrassed and indignant that Clement would have the audacity to misrepresent my opinions in an effort to shield himself from having to be accountable and transparent.
After all even though Harper and the Con's are poring in 100's of millions of dollars, it only really benefits a relatively few. This is not just a one off thing and Harper and the Con's have been spending billions upon billions of Canadians' hard earned money for their own partizan purposes.
In the news just yesterday the former Con Cabinet Minster, Greg Thompson:
"who resigned as veterans affairs minister in January and isn't running in the next federal election, said he has an email from Ashfield's chief of staff suggesting that projects in his riding of New Brunswick Southwest should be put on hold until there's a new Tory candidate and until after the provincial election.
"My opinion, put everything on hold in that riding until there is a nominated federal candidate, and preferably until after Sept. 27," the email from Fred Nott states [Ashfield's chief of staff].
Thompson said he took the issue directly to Ashfield on Monday in Ottawa.
'He said we're not going to be carrying the province on our backs into the next election and them getting the credit for all the projects,' Thompson said. 'He said that with his own lips to me in the House of Commons.'
Ashfield's response, apparently, to these allegations: we have a difference of opinion
(see: N.B. Premier riled at Tory 'partisan' games, By Kevin Bissett, The Canadian Press, Wed Jun 16, 9:55 PM
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100616/national/nb_partisan_politics)
You've got the 'right' (in an extremist, right wing, ideological kind of way) Ashfield, the Con opinion is that what Canada's is theirs; and Canadians opinions is that Harper and the Con's are their trustees and accountable to the people.
Tony Clament, I suggest to you that it is the people of Canadian are cheesed off and don't deserve the kind of outrageous, partizan spending of our hard earned tax dollars under the guise of the G8-20.
It is not the good people of Muskoka that are doing the spending, of course, it is you, Harper and all the Con's running this country, and it is not the good people of Muskoka that are being questioned by the Liberals it is you. I can only wonder how it is you seem to be so confused on this.
Clament's response to the quite legitimate inquiry by the Liberals ( "$2-million street improvement project for Port Severn, 135 kilometres away from the summit site in Huntsville, as well as a $700,000 main street and bridge improvement project in the small town of Kearney, 42 kilometres from the summit site") are allegations that the Liberals are: "lying and twisting the truth" about the G8 legacy fund, and said they should instead explain to taxpayers why they support the "wasteful" federal long-gun registry."
Tony, if you feel the Liberals are 'lying and twisting the truth' then the rational response would be to tell Canadians what the truth is. Instead, when you get the opportunity to do just that you try to snow Canadians (like we need more snow from Harper and his Con's). Not only do you avoid the question, in a fashion typical of the guilty, but your response is irrational. Perhaps you could explain how spending money on one thing justifies their outrageous, partizan spending of billions on the G8-20.
Tony, if you feel the Liberals are 'lying and twisting the truth' then the rational response would be to tell Canadians what the truth is.
Harper, Clament and all you Con's, the Canadian people have a right to know how our money is being spent. The Official Opposition's job is to represent Canadians' interests and demand answers to these kinds of important, searching, searing questions.
Mr. Clament, I suggest to you, the good people of Canada that are also cheesed off by this refusal to answer our questions, not only avoiding to answer these important questions, but to instead insult our messenger.
The money being spent on the long gun registry is peanuts compared to the partizan spending by Harper, Flaherty, Clament and all the Con's. Also, how could the money spent in the distant past on setting it up, justify this kind of massive spending for partizan purposes. Let me be very clear on this, "It doesn't!".
Oh, and while you're at it, perhaps you could also explain why the Harper government is spending 16 billion on next generation fighter jets. Now, wouldn't it be in the interest of all Canadians to ear-mark this 16 billion for the 'future generation' of Canadians. And there are billions of other such questions as well, while your at it.
The fact of the matter is that Harper and the Con's will continue their outrageous actions and partizan spending, Canadians be damned. The only solution is stand up and rid Canada of this blight.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
G8 funds flood Clement's riding: Liberals, Industry minister 'cheesed off' by pork-barrelling accusations, June 16, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/16/g8-g20-spending-liberals-clement.html
Industry Minister Tony Clement said:" I'm cheesed off because I know the people in my riding don't deserve the kind of partisan attacks the Liberals have been doing,"
[Angus Reid Poll: 78 per cent claiming that the expected expenditure of $1 billion is unjustified, with 11% uncertain and 11% saying it's justified, 11 - 12 Jun.'10]
I wonder what the % is for Clement's riding. I think I would be quite surprised if they were not just as 'cheesed off' by outrageous, partizan spending of our hard earned tax dollars under the guise of the G8-20. If I lived there I would be embarrassed and indignant that Clement would have the audacity to misrepresent my opinions in an effort to shield himself from having to be accountable and transparent.
After all even though Harper and the Con's are poring in 100's of millions of dollars, it only really benefits a relatively few. This is not just a one off thing and Harper and the Con's have been spending billions upon billions of Canadians' hard earned money for their own partizan purposes.
In the news just yesterday the former Con Cabinet Minster, Greg Thompson:
"who resigned as veterans affairs minister in January and isn't running in the next federal election, said he has an email from Ashfield's chief of staff suggesting that projects in his riding of New Brunswick Southwest should be put on hold until there's a new Tory candidate and until after the provincial election.
"My opinion, put everything on hold in that riding until there is a nominated federal candidate, and preferably until after Sept. 27," the email from Fred Nott states [Ashfield's chief of staff].
Thompson said he took the issue directly to Ashfield on Monday in Ottawa.
'He said we're not going to be carrying the province on our backs into the next election and them getting the credit for all the projects,' Thompson said. 'He said that with his own lips to me in the House of Commons.'
Ashfield's response, apparently, to these allegations: we have a difference of opinion
(see: N.B. Premier riled at Tory 'partisan' games, By Kevin Bissett, The Canadian Press, Wed Jun 16, 9:55 PM
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100616/national/nb_partisan_politics)
You've got the 'right' (in an extremist, right wing, ideological kind of way) Ashfield, the Con opinion is that what Canada's is theirs; and Canadians opinions is that Harper and the Con's are their trustees and accountable to the people.
Tony Clament, I suggest to you that it is the people of Canadian are cheesed off and don't deserve the kind of outrageous, partizan spending of our hard earned tax dollars under the guise of the G8-20.
It is not the good people of Muskoka that are doing the spending, of course, it is you, Harper and all the Con's running this country, and it is not the good people of Muskoka that are being questioned by the Liberals it is you. I can only wonder how it is you seem to be so confused on this.
Clament's response to the quite legitimate inquiry by the Liberals ( "$2-million street improvement project for Port Severn, 135 kilometres away from the summit site in Huntsville, as well as a $700,000 main street and bridge improvement project in the small town of Kearney, 42 kilometres from the summit site") are allegations that the Liberals are: "lying and twisting the truth" about the G8 legacy fund, and said they should instead explain to taxpayers why they support the "wasteful" federal long-gun registry."
Tony, if you feel the Liberals are 'lying and twisting the truth' then the rational response would be to tell Canadians what the truth is. Instead, when you get the opportunity to do just that you try to snow Canadians (like we need more snow from Harper and his Con's). Not only do you avoid the question, in a fashion typical of the guilty, but your response is irrational. Perhaps you could explain how spending money on one thing justifies their outrageous, partizan spending of billions on the G8-20.
Tony, if you feel the Liberals are 'lying and twisting the truth' then the rational response would be to tell Canadians what the truth is.
Harper, Clament and all you Con's, the Canadian people have a right to know how our money is being spent. The Official Opposition's job is to represent Canadians' interests and demand answers to these kinds of important, searching, searing questions.
Mr. Clament, I suggest to you, the good people of Canada that are also cheesed off by this refusal to answer our questions, not only avoiding to answer these important questions, but to instead insult our messenger.
The money being spent on the long gun registry is peanuts compared to the partizan spending by Harper, Flaherty, Clament and all the Con's. Also, how could the money spent in the distant past on setting it up, justify this kind of massive spending for partizan purposes. Let me be very clear on this, "It doesn't!".
Oh, and while you're at it, perhaps you could also explain why the Harper government is spending 16 billion on next generation fighter jets. Now, wouldn't it be in the interest of all Canadians to ear-mark this 16 billion for the 'future generation' of Canadians. And there are billions of other such questions as well, while your at it.
The fact of the matter is that Harper and the Con's will continue their outrageous actions and partizan spending, Canadians be damned. The only solution is stand up and rid Canada of this blight.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
16 June, 2010
- Harper's Afghan Policy - If He Can't Play Soldier, He Wants to Takes His Marbles and Go Home
Posted: 6/16/2010 10:45:30 AM The Globe and Mail
Afghanistan: Ignatieff enlists, Harper wobbles, The Globe and Mail, 16 Jun.'10,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/afghanistan-ignatieff-enlists-harper-wobbles/article1605485/
Canada ending its combat role in Kandahar and “contributing to the capacity of the Afghan people to govern themselves effectively continues to be in Canada’s interests,” sounds like the same role Canada undertook when it first went into Afghanistan and before Harper and the Con's, with such free abandon, took over and ramped it up to full combat.
It appears that Stephen Harper, if he can't play soldier anymore, wants to take his marbles (actually they're not his marbles, of course, Harper just treats Canada's resources and revenues as if they were his and the Con's, after all to the winner go the spoils - that's a pretty fundamental Con doctrine) and go home.
It is important for Canada to maintain a presence in Afghanistan and help it to rebuild and Ignatieff is right (morally) that to simply pull out would undermine all our efforts and all the sacrifices our men and women in uniform have made.
The recent news that there is approx 1 trillion in minerals There is real potential to help in build Afghanistan - vis.:
"The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe."
(NYT, 13 Jun.'10)
Given Canada's long history and expertise in mining certainly we can assist them in this regard. It may even supplant their current cash crop (I have never understood why G.W. Bush with his 'war on drugs' didn't do something about it, but then Bush was the ultimate Con). It would also tend to loosen the grip by the Taliban since they obtain a considerable amount of their funding from the poppy crops and it is easy for them to 'interact with' farmers. However, it is hard to see them exerting much direct influence in the mining industry.
Also, leaving Afghanistan will mean that after we have spent so much efforts there, other countries will step in and give the real assistance.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Afghanistan: Ignatieff enlists, Harper wobbles, The Globe and Mail, 16 Jun.'10,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/afghanistan-ignatieff-enlists-harper-wobbles/article1605485/
Canada ending its combat role in Kandahar and “contributing to the capacity of the Afghan people to govern themselves effectively continues to be in Canada’s interests,” sounds like the same role Canada undertook when it first went into Afghanistan and before Harper and the Con's, with such free abandon, took over and ramped it up to full combat.
It appears that Stephen Harper, if he can't play soldier anymore, wants to take his marbles (actually they're not his marbles, of course, Harper just treats Canada's resources and revenues as if they were his and the Con's, after all to the winner go the spoils - that's a pretty fundamental Con doctrine) and go home.
It is important for Canada to maintain a presence in Afghanistan and help it to rebuild and Ignatieff is right (morally) that to simply pull out would undermine all our efforts and all the sacrifices our men and women in uniform have made.
The recent news that there is approx 1 trillion in minerals There is real potential to help in build Afghanistan - vis.:
"The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe."
(NYT, 13 Jun.'10)
Given Canada's long history and expertise in mining certainly we can assist them in this regard. It may even supplant their current cash crop (I have never understood why G.W. Bush with his 'war on drugs' didn't do something about it, but then Bush was the ultimate Con). It would also tend to loosen the grip by the Taliban since they obtain a considerable amount of their funding from the poppy crops and it is easy for them to 'interact with' farmers. However, it is hard to see them exerting much direct influence in the mining industry.
Also, leaving Afghanistan will mean that after we have spent so much efforts there, other countries will step in and give the real assistance.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
15 June, 2010
- Stephen Harper? All Canadians Should be Concerned, Stand Up and Take Note
Canada's national security ought to trump the Afghan affair.
The indicators suggest, as far as I can see, the possibility that Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Laurie Hawn, O'Connor and the Con's are hiding things, not because of 'national security' but for partizan purposes and, perhaps, right down to personal reasons given International criminal sanctions and Canada's criminal sanction regarding war crimes. Also, the actions of Harper and his Con's seems to me to mimic the profile of the guilty.
Given the mood of an awful lot of people in the country, including the opposition parties, and especially the NDP, if evidence of wrong doing is uncovered they may not stop until justice is done and they may be right (more as an extremist, non compromising approach like Layton, as opposed to the compromising, what's in the best interest of all Canadians approach traditionally maintained by the Liberal) to so do.
However, this is not a trivial consideration.
One need only consider what Tom Flanagan said on Power and Politics with Evan Solomon, CBC News, 31 May '10:
"One thing one thing that needs to be said, it's characteristic of Democratic governments not to pursue past, ah past, heads of Government, to show mercy. I think the wisest thing that Gerald Ford did was to, ah, pardon Richard Nixon. It's characteristic of all [sic] authoritarian, totalitarian governments to pursue previous politicians and ra, you know, rejoice in putting them in jail and so forth. I think Democratic governments have to set their face to the future and, and show mercy, even when wrong doing has been demonstrated.
[Q.Solomon: . . . why should justice have a sunset clause?]
[Flanagan] Because, if you turn government into a battle where the stakes are imprisonment, you're going to undermine democracy itself, people will start to use undemocratic methods to stay in power, because they know that loss of power means loss of liberty or perhaps even loss of life.
Flanagan was talking in the context of the decision just released in the Oliphant Inquiry. But, the applicability to the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing scandal is chilling, especially given who made the statement (prof of political science at U of Calgary), adviser and long time friend of Harper and and former campaign manager for Harper and the Con's)."
The feeling is that Flanagan's statement appeared to be prepared, intended to carry a message. It was way over-the-top as far as Mulroney's situation is concerned and could not, in my mind, have been intended to apply to it since for one thing he has been out of office for so long and has no opportunity to undermine democracy to save his skin. Also, it is simply not that important and it is unlikely anyone would support him in any such undermining Democracy endeavour. And when it gets right down to it, Mulroney is simply not that type of personality.
As a warning and with its applicability to the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal it is chilling - perhaps intended. With someone like Flanagan one must assume that if that was the impact experienced, especially when it is so pronounced, it would be wise to assume that was the impact intended.
Harper is right (in a right wing extremist sort of way), it is a question of national security.
All Canadians should be concerned, very concerned, especially with the Harper dogma such as 'Losers don't get to form coalitions'; and, "Let me be very clear: Canada's Government cannot enter into a power-sharing coalition with a separatist party.", stand up and take note.
Also, sometimes it may be that compromise is the way to go as opposed to in-your-face confrontation, even if you are right or should I say left.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
The indicators suggest, as far as I can see, the possibility that Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Laurie Hawn, O'Connor and the Con's are hiding things, not because of 'national security' but for partizan purposes and, perhaps, right down to personal reasons given International criminal sanctions and Canada's criminal sanction regarding war crimes. Also, the actions of Harper and his Con's seems to me to mimic the profile of the guilty.
Given the mood of an awful lot of people in the country, including the opposition parties, and especially the NDP, if evidence of wrong doing is uncovered they may not stop until justice is done and they may be right (more as an extremist, non compromising approach like Layton, as opposed to the compromising, what's in the best interest of all Canadians approach traditionally maintained by the Liberal) to so do.
However, this is not a trivial consideration.
One need only consider what Tom Flanagan said on Power and Politics with Evan Solomon, CBC News, 31 May '10:
"One thing one thing that needs to be said, it's characteristic of Democratic governments not to pursue past, ah past, heads of Government, to show mercy. I think the wisest thing that Gerald Ford did was to, ah, pardon Richard Nixon. It's characteristic of all [sic] authoritarian, totalitarian governments to pursue previous politicians and ra, you know, rejoice in putting them in jail and so forth. I think Democratic governments have to set their face to the future and, and show mercy, even when wrong doing has been demonstrated.
[Q.Solomon: . . . why should justice have a sunset clause?]
[Flanagan] Because, if you turn government into a battle where the stakes are imprisonment, you're going to undermine democracy itself, people will start to use undemocratic methods to stay in power, because they know that loss of power means loss of liberty or perhaps even loss of life.
Flanagan was talking in the context of the decision just released in the Oliphant Inquiry. But, the applicability to the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing scandal is chilling, especially given who made the statement (prof of political science at U of Calgary), adviser and long time friend of Harper and and former campaign manager for Harper and the Con's)."
The feeling is that Flanagan's statement appeared to be prepared, intended to carry a message. It was way over-the-top as far as Mulroney's situation is concerned and could not, in my mind, have been intended to apply to it since for one thing he has been out of office for so long and has no opportunity to undermine democracy to save his skin. Also, it is simply not that important and it is unlikely anyone would support him in any such undermining Democracy endeavour. And when it gets right down to it, Mulroney is simply not that type of personality.
As a warning and with its applicability to the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal it is chilling - perhaps intended. With someone like Flanagan one must assume that if that was the impact experienced, especially when it is so pronounced, it would be wise to assume that was the impact intended.
Harper is right (in a right wing extremist sort of way), it is a question of national security.
All Canadians should be concerned, very concerned, especially with the Harper dogma such as 'Losers don't get to form coalitions'; and, "Let me be very clear: Canada's Government cannot enter into a power-sharing coalition with a separatist party.", stand up and take note.
Also, sometimes it may be that compromise is the way to go as opposed to in-your-face confrontation, even if you are right or should I say left.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
14 June, 2010
- We're being Con'd, yet again, by Harper.
Submitted: 7:55am, PDT, 14 Jun.'10 CBC News
Afghan records talks go down to wire
Last Updated: Monday, June 14, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/14/afghan-documents-documents-talks.html
This is clearly a delaying tactic by Stephen Harper to get to the Summer recess. Unless, of course, these 'negotiations' continue into the Summer, but then once the referee goes home, then what.
When Parliament resumes, the Afghan Detainee transfer issue and ensuing scandal will just be a fond memory and we're likely into an election.
If Harper gets a majority you can bet Canada's bottom dollar (and with Harper's insane spending, you can bet your bottom dollar it will be Canada's bottom dollar) the "Afghan Detainee transfer issue and ensuing scandal" will disappear, or at the least aspects of it will.
Why not simply defer to House Speaker Peter Milliken now, as to whether Harper and the Con's are in violation of his order and its intent.
Considering the billions it is costing Canadians for the G8-20 and the dubious, if that, benefits that Canadians or Canada as a whole can reasonably expect,
All the Opposition Parties should be delaying the vote on government's main spending estimates anyway. In fact they should be quashing it. We're going to an election soon anyway, you might as well end on a positive note.
Lloyd MacILquham
Afghan records talks go down to wire
Last Updated: Monday, June 14, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/14/afghan-documents-documents-talks.html
This is clearly a delaying tactic by Stephen Harper to get to the Summer recess. Unless, of course, these 'negotiations' continue into the Summer, but then once the referee goes home, then what.
When Parliament resumes, the Afghan Detainee transfer issue and ensuing scandal will just be a fond memory and we're likely into an election.
If Harper gets a majority you can bet Canada's bottom dollar (and with Harper's insane spending, you can bet your bottom dollar it will be Canada's bottom dollar) the "Afghan Detainee transfer issue and ensuing scandal" will disappear, or at the least aspects of it will.
Why not simply defer to House Speaker Peter Milliken now, as to whether Harper and the Con's are in violation of his order and its intent.
Considering the billions it is costing Canadians for the G8-20 and the dubious, if that, benefits that Canadians or Canada as a whole can reasonably expect,
All the Opposition Parties should be delaying the vote on government's main spending estimates anyway. In fact they should be quashing it. We're going to an election soon anyway, you might as well end on a positive note.
Lloyd MacILquham
- Stephen Harper Becoming Prime Minister is where It All Went Wrong
Posted: 6/14/2010 10:09:45 AM The Globe and Mail
Splitting the summit is where it all went wrong, Roy MacGregor, Sunday, Jun. 13, 2010,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/splitting-the-summit-is-where-it-all-went-wrong/article1602867/
"Splitting the summit is where it all went wrong "???
Stephen Harper becoming Prime Minister and the Con's running this great nation of ours is where it all went wrong.
" G20 in Seoul was cancelled" - now that's interesting, I wonder why.
"They could also have decided to scrap Huntsville and meet only in Toronto, but infrastructure money was already being spread about the region and Industry Minister Tony Clement, who had lobbied successfully for Muskoka, would not only have lost face but perhaps his seat – a vital consideration in minority-government circles."
So, a Billion of Canadian tax payer's hard earned dollars, just to save Tony Clement his seat. Thanks Harper, how to put Canada and Canadians first.
"Most importantly, however, had it stayed completely in Muskoka, there would never have been a fake lake.
And instead of the world laughing at us, the world could be here enjoying the real thing."
So, I guess Jim Flaherty was right, this débâcle is making us 'players'. The problem is what role are we playing.
All Canadians should ask themselves, "is this what we want for our government", "is this how we want to be seen on the International stage". Preach fiscal restrain to all the other countries, engaging in insane spending to do it - shrewd strategy, Harper.
They would be "charmed by the uniquely Canadian beauty of the region and by the warm hospitality of Muskokans.”.
That's true enough. But, give them each a holiday gift certificate of $1000 instead of holding the G8-20 and I suspect they would be even more charmed by Canadian hospitality and it would be much cheaper for us as well and likely Canadians would get some good out of it.
You know there's still time to show some soul, like Seoul, go back to the drawing board and come up with something within the realm of reasonable for next time.
What would happen if there is a non-confidence vote before the Summits.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Splitting the summit is where it all went wrong, Roy MacGregor, Sunday, Jun. 13, 2010,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/splitting-the-summit-is-where-it-all-went-wrong/article1602867/
"Splitting the summit is where it all went wrong "???
Stephen Harper becoming Prime Minister and the Con's running this great nation of ours is where it all went wrong.
" G20 in Seoul was cancelled" - now that's interesting, I wonder why.
"They could also have decided to scrap Huntsville and meet only in Toronto, but infrastructure money was already being spread about the region and Industry Minister Tony Clement, who had lobbied successfully for Muskoka, would not only have lost face but perhaps his seat – a vital consideration in minority-government circles."
So, a Billion of Canadian tax payer's hard earned dollars, just to save Tony Clement his seat. Thanks Harper, how to put Canada and Canadians first.
"Most importantly, however, had it stayed completely in Muskoka, there would never have been a fake lake.
And instead of the world laughing at us, the world could be here enjoying the real thing."
So, I guess Jim Flaherty was right, this débâcle is making us 'players'. The problem is what role are we playing.
All Canadians should ask themselves, "is this what we want for our government", "is this how we want to be seen on the International stage". Preach fiscal restrain to all the other countries, engaging in insane spending to do it - shrewd strategy, Harper.
They would be "charmed by the uniquely Canadian beauty of the region and by the warm hospitality of Muskokans.”.
That's true enough. But, give them each a holiday gift certificate of $1000 instead of holding the G8-20 and I suspect they would be even more charmed by Canadian hospitality and it would be much cheaper for us as well and likely Canadians would get some good out of it.
You know there's still time to show some soul, like Seoul, go back to the drawing board and come up with something within the realm of reasonable for next time.
What would happen if there is a non-confidence vote before the Summits.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
13 June, 2010
- Harper Spending Our Billions - It's Just Not Right (Morally, That Is)
Posted: 6/13/2010 9:14:45 AM The Globe And Mail
Harper may be ‘ragging the puck’ on detainee records: Ignatieff , Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff speaks during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa June 10, 2010. REUTERS/Chris Wattie
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-may-be-ragging-the-puck-on-detainee-records-ignatieff/article1602303/
Why not simply defer to House Speaker Peter Milliken as to whether Harper and the Con's are in violation of his order and its intent.
Considering the billions it is costing Canadians for the G8-20 and the dubious, if that, benefits that Canadians or Canada as a whole can reasonably expect,
All the Opposition Parties should be delaying the vote on government's main spending estimates. In fact they should be quashing it.
It seems that Harper and the Con's are now suggesting that the entourages of the 20 leaders will like it so much they will stay for a holiday and then get to see the real Canada. Now that got to be worth 2 billion.
What's that got to do with the G8 or G20. Isn't that what the various tourism departments do. And, when it gets right down to it, it got to be cheaper to simply organize junkets for these people to come over and have a holiday, cheaper by a factor of 100, and with junkets we get to control the message. Why is it Harper is so good at 'Messaging', except this time. Who knows what evil lurks in the Hearts of Harper and the Con's. Without all the obstruction, obscuration, obfuscation, secrecy, refusing disclosure, we would have a much better idea. One thing all Canadians can be sure of, is that Harper is doing it for very narrow partizan purposes and Canada be damned.
In the news is the 16 Billion for "next generation fighter jets". As if that is not, like the G8-20, insanely wasteful enough. It seems Harper and the Con's will be sending the 16 Billion outside Canada.
The Opposition Parties must confront Harper and the Con's on all this insane spending, especially when it does not benefit Canadians, but only Harper, the Con's and their partizan ends.
What better opportunity than this vote on government's main spending estimates.
Also, Harper, how about earmarking that 16 Billion for "next generation Canadians".
Brian Mulroney racked up huge deficits as well and that's despite bringing in the GST and Free Trade with the US, both of which were supposed to give us the good life. There's something about the Con ideology that manifests itself in hypocrisy - one the one hand claiming to be fiscally prudence; but on the other spending Canadian tax payers' hard earned money with free abandon. Perhaps it is the laissez-faire approach to everything, the basic philosophy of unrestrained exercise of power, to the winner go the spoils, as they used to say in ancient Rome (to which the Con's like to compare themselves, despite our society spending the last 2000 years establishing a morality to oppose such corruption): Veni Vidi Vici
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Harper may be ‘ragging the puck’ on detainee records: Ignatieff , Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff speaks during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa June 10, 2010. REUTERS/Chris Wattie
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-may-be-ragging-the-puck-on-detainee-records-ignatieff/article1602303/
Why not simply defer to House Speaker Peter Milliken as to whether Harper and the Con's are in violation of his order and its intent.
Considering the billions it is costing Canadians for the G8-20 and the dubious, if that, benefits that Canadians or Canada as a whole can reasonably expect,
All the Opposition Parties should be delaying the vote on government's main spending estimates. In fact they should be quashing it.
It seems that Harper and the Con's are now suggesting that the entourages of the 20 leaders will like it so much they will stay for a holiday and then get to see the real Canada. Now that got to be worth 2 billion.
What's that got to do with the G8 or G20. Isn't that what the various tourism departments do. And, when it gets right down to it, it got to be cheaper to simply organize junkets for these people to come over and have a holiday, cheaper by a factor of 100, and with junkets we get to control the message. Why is it Harper is so good at 'Messaging', except this time. Who knows what evil lurks in the Hearts of Harper and the Con's. Without all the obstruction, obscuration, obfuscation, secrecy, refusing disclosure, we would have a much better idea. One thing all Canadians can be sure of, is that Harper is doing it for very narrow partizan purposes and Canada be damned.
In the news is the 16 Billion for "next generation fighter jets". As if that is not, like the G8-20, insanely wasteful enough. It seems Harper and the Con's will be sending the 16 Billion outside Canada.
The Opposition Parties must confront Harper and the Con's on all this insane spending, especially when it does not benefit Canadians, but only Harper, the Con's and their partizan ends.
What better opportunity than this vote on government's main spending estimates.
Also, Harper, how about earmarking that 16 Billion for "next generation Canadians".
Brian Mulroney racked up huge deficits as well and that's despite bringing in the GST and Free Trade with the US, both of which were supposed to give us the good life. There's something about the Con ideology that manifests itself in hypocrisy - one the one hand claiming to be fiscally prudence; but on the other spending Canadian tax payers' hard earned money with free abandon. Perhaps it is the laissez-faire approach to everything, the basic philosophy of unrestrained exercise of power, to the winner go the spoils, as they used to say in ancient Rome (to which the Con's like to compare themselves, despite our society spending the last 2000 years establishing a morality to oppose such corruption): Veni Vidi Vici
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
12 June, 2010
- Harper, It's Just That Simple, continued
Continued from my earlier post:
**************
18010 wrote: 6/11/2010 8:36:31 AM
"COns = Liars
Its that simple"
so far, 18010 has: [thumbs up] 6200 and [thumbs down] 3623
**************
Here's something interesting
'08 election results (http://elections.ca/scripts/OVR2008/default.html)
Total: 13 834 294
Con's: 5 209 069
so, 62.4% of Canadians voted against Harper and his Con's
for 18010's posting: "COns = Liars, Its that simple"
[thumbs up] 6200 and [thumbs down] 3623 (as of approx. 10:47am)
So, 63.1% indicate that 'Con' is synonymous with 'Liars'
These number are statistically virtually the same.
Now that an amazing co-incidence.
So, it is just that simple
And, why in the world is the 63.1% still putting up with Harper and his Con's.
I know what my campaign slogan would be if I were leading a party in opposition to Harper and his Con's. I wonder if its been used before . . .
no, not "it's just that simple", I mean "Cons=Liars" (well, actually I do mean something like "it's just that simple")
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
**************
18010 wrote: 6/11/2010 8:36:31 AM
"COns = Liars
Its that simple"
so far, 18010 has: [thumbs up] 6200 and [thumbs down] 3623
**************
Here's something interesting
'08 election results (http://elections.ca/scripts/OVR2008/default.html)
Total: 13 834 294
Con's: 5 209 069
so, 62.4% of Canadians voted against Harper and his Con's
for 18010's posting: "COns = Liars, Its that simple"
[thumbs up] 6200 and [thumbs down] 3623 (as of approx. 10:47am)
So, 63.1% indicate that 'Con' is synonymous with 'Liars'
These number are statistically virtually the same.
Now that an amazing co-incidence.
So, it is just that simple
And, why in the world is the 63.1% still putting up with Harper and his Con's.
I know what my campaign slogan would be if I were leading a party in opposition to Harper and his Con's. I wonder if its been used before . . .
no, not "it's just that simple", I mean "Cons=Liars" (well, actually I do mean something like "it's just that simple")
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper, How about 16 billion for the Next Generation of Canadians
Posted: 6/12/2010 11:35:44 AM The Globe and Mail
Tories accused of breaking promise for open bidding on fighter jets, Ottawa wasting tax dollars on $16-billion deal, NDP charges, Daniel Leblanc Ottawa, Globe and Mail Update, Jun. 11, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-accused-of-breaking-promise-for-open-bidding-on-fighter-jets/article1601021/
Harper, here's a suggestion.
How about 16 billion for the next generation of Canadians.
16 billion for “next generation” of fighter jets. That's insane.
Aren't we in an economic recession. Didn't we just incur an over 45 billion deficit trying stimulate the economy and create jobs for Canadians.
And, just exactly why do we need these next generation fighter jets, anyway. . . . Oh, yah, so Harper, Hawn, MacKay can play soldier and drag Canada into active combat, spending billions in the process.
This is even harder to believe if the Harper government does not ensure that Canadian companies get the contracts and at least keep the money in Canada.
Just exactly who is going to get the contracts anyway. Does Haliburton build fighter jets, I wonder. That's the company with connections to the Con movement in the US, not the quaint rural town in Ontario.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Tories accused of breaking promise for open bidding on fighter jets, Ottawa wasting tax dollars on $16-billion deal, NDP charges, Daniel Leblanc Ottawa, Globe and Mail Update, Jun. 11, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-accused-of-breaking-promise-for-open-bidding-on-fighter-jets/article1601021/
Harper, here's a suggestion.
How about 16 billion for the next generation of Canadians.
16 billion for “next generation” of fighter jets. That's insane.
Aren't we in an economic recession. Didn't we just incur an over 45 billion deficit trying stimulate the economy and create jobs for Canadians.
And, just exactly why do we need these next generation fighter jets, anyway. . . . Oh, yah, so Harper, Hawn, MacKay can play soldier and drag Canada into active combat, spending billions in the process.
This is even harder to believe if the Harper government does not ensure that Canadian companies get the contracts and at least keep the money in Canada.
Just exactly who is going to get the contracts anyway. Does Haliburton build fighter jets, I wonder. That's the company with connections to the Con movement in the US, not the quaint rural town in Ontario.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper, It's Just That Simple
Posted: 6/12/2010 11:04:50 AM The Globe and Mail
Tories accused of breaking promise for open bidding on fighter jets, Ottawa wasting tax dollars on $16-billion deal, NDP charges, Daniel Leblanc Ottawa, Globe and Mail Update, Jun. 11, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-accused-of-breaking-promise-for-open-bidding-on-fighter-jets/article1601021/
18010 wrote: 6/11/2010 8:36:31 AM
"COns = Liars
Its that simple"
so far, 18010 has: [thumbs up] 6200 and [thumbs down] 3623
Stephen Harper, it is just that simple.
(see: Friday's G&M, "Shock and awe over Liberal Party prez’s coalition comments and memories of the Chevrolet summit", Jane Taber)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Tories accused of breaking promise for open bidding on fighter jets, Ottawa wasting tax dollars on $16-billion deal, NDP charges, Daniel Leblanc Ottawa, Globe and Mail Update, Jun. 11, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-accused-of-breaking-promise-for-open-bidding-on-fighter-jets/article1601021/
18010 wrote: 6/11/2010 8:36:31 AM
"COns = Liars
Its that simple"
so far, 18010 has: [thumbs up] 6200 and [thumbs down] 3623
Stephen Harper, it is just that simple.
(see: Friday's G&M, "Shock and awe over Liberal Party prez’s coalition comments and memories of the Chevrolet summit", Jane Taber)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper, Explain Thyself
Posted: 6/12/2010 10:47:20 AM The Globe and Mail
Friday, June 11, 2010, Shock and awe over Liberal Party prez’s coalition comments and memories of the Chevrolet summit, Jane Taber
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/shock-and-awe-over-liberal-party-prezs-coalition-comments-and-memories-of-the-chevrolet-summit/article1600427/
Just exactly what's wrong with the approx 2/3rd of Canadian 'losers', as Harper refers to us, that voted against Harper getting together and giving Harper and his Con's the boot.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
In fact, it is an urgent necessity if we wish to salvage our Canadian a way of life built up by the blood, sweat and tears of our forefathers and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
Stephen Harper's statement during his visit with the new English Prime Minister:
"'Losers don't get to form coalitions' he declared in the garden at 10 Downing St. 'Winners are the ones who form government, and obviously David was able to form an innovative arrangement.'
He added: 'In the end, the coalition in Britain - I think it's important to point out - was formed by the party that won the election.'"
is clearly simply self-serving demagoguery designed for the 33% die-hard Con supporters when epi-centre is Alberta.
Just exactly what's wrong with the approx 2/3rd of Canadian 'losers' that voted against Harper getting together and giving Harper and his Con's the boot. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Stephen Harper is, once again, applying the Harperavellian Fundamental Principle: "it doesn't have to be true, it only has to sound plausible", to formulate this corollary: 'Losers don't get to form coalitions'.
If I recall, the Liberal-Democrats' first attempt at a coalition was with the Labour Party. That's right the other 'loser'.
Clearly they were under the impression that had they come to an agreement they would have assuming the government and from what I saw everyone else in Britain seemed to be operating under the same understanding.
I don't recall anyone in England suggesting that it would be unconstitutional for the two losers to form a coalition and assume the government.
I also don't recall Harper making any comments along the lines that that would have been an illegal government or that Canada would not have recognized it if they had assumed power. Perhaps Harper could explain this non-sequitur.
That's a good question for Harper do his comments mean that had the Liberal-Democrats and the Labour Parties formed a coalition, would Harper refuse to recognize this illegal government of losers.
Another application of the Harperavellian Fundamental Principle is Harper's dis-enfranchising over 1.4 million voters in Quebec by say that they would not be allowed even to simply proclaim their support for a government.
This is, if I recall, after he himself was willing to accept the Block support to form a government in '04 to form a coalition of losers and supplant the winner of the '04 election.
When he says 'Losers don't get to form coalitions', if Harper is not referring to the constitutionality and legality of it, then exactly what is he referring to.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Friday, June 11, 2010, Shock and awe over Liberal Party prez’s coalition comments and memories of the Chevrolet summit, Jane Taber
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/shock-and-awe-over-liberal-party-prezs-coalition-comments-and-memories-of-the-chevrolet-summit/article1600427/
Just exactly what's wrong with the approx 2/3rd of Canadian 'losers', as Harper refers to us, that voted against Harper getting together and giving Harper and his Con's the boot.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
In fact, it is an urgent necessity if we wish to salvage our Canadian a way of life built up by the blood, sweat and tears of our forefathers and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
Stephen Harper's statement during his visit with the new English Prime Minister:
"'Losers don't get to form coalitions' he declared in the garden at 10 Downing St. 'Winners are the ones who form government, and obviously David was able to form an innovative arrangement.'
He added: 'In the end, the coalition in Britain - I think it's important to point out - was formed by the party that won the election.'"
is clearly simply self-serving demagoguery designed for the 33% die-hard Con supporters when epi-centre is Alberta.
Just exactly what's wrong with the approx 2/3rd of Canadian 'losers' that voted against Harper getting together and giving Harper and his Con's the boot. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Stephen Harper is, once again, applying the Harperavellian Fundamental Principle: "it doesn't have to be true, it only has to sound plausible", to formulate this corollary: 'Losers don't get to form coalitions'.
If I recall, the Liberal-Democrats' first attempt at a coalition was with the Labour Party. That's right the other 'loser'.
Clearly they were under the impression that had they come to an agreement they would have assuming the government and from what I saw everyone else in Britain seemed to be operating under the same understanding.
I don't recall anyone in England suggesting that it would be unconstitutional for the two losers to form a coalition and assume the government.
I also don't recall Harper making any comments along the lines that that would have been an illegal government or that Canada would not have recognized it if they had assumed power. Perhaps Harper could explain this non-sequitur.
That's a good question for Harper do his comments mean that had the Liberal-Democrats and the Labour Parties formed a coalition, would Harper refuse to recognize this illegal government of losers.
Another application of the Harperavellian Fundamental Principle is Harper's dis-enfranchising over 1.4 million voters in Quebec by say that they would not be allowed even to simply proclaim their support for a government.
This is, if I recall, after he himself was willing to accept the Block support to form a government in '04 to form a coalition of losers and supplant the winner of the '04 election.
When he says 'Losers don't get to form coalitions', if Harper is not referring to the constitutionality and legality of it, then exactly what is he referring to.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
10 June, 2010
- Stop The Boat, Let Harper Off
Posted: 6/10/2010 12:01:53 PM The Globe and Mail
Harper's bank-tax victory has left some scars, Campbell Clark, Globe and Mail Update, Jun. 09, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/harpers-bank-tax-victory-has-left-some-scars/article1598602/
"But they have been the most resistant to Canada’s proposal for common interim deficit targets, according to officials from several G20 countries. In meetings of G20 sherpas, they say they’ll deal with deficit targets inside Europe. Other participants say it’s a response to Canada’s bank-tax opposition. “The Europeans quite easily say, ‘Just like you said on the [bank tax] issue, you can do that if you want, but we don’t need to,’ ” one official from a G20 country said.
. . .
G20 countries are going their separate ways."
So:
The result of all of Stephen Harper's efforts regarding the Bank Tax, including Canada spending billions on the summits, is to fuel discord amongst the G20 countries, to give each an excuse to 'go their own way',go back to unilateralism, isolationism, protectionism, to undo years of work getting economically based countries together to co-operate.
This, of course, is the first steps to individual protectionism, which everyone says is the worst thing that could happen to the world economies. That's nice. Thanks Steve.
"The U.S. and European bank-tax backers had hoped to bypass the Toronto summit, and the host’s opposition, and push it at the November summit in Seoul. Then Canada’s campaign won support, and the bank tax was shelved at last weekend’s meeting of finance ministers in South Korea. But the G20 didn’t adopt it or kill it – they agreed to go their separate ways – Europe can do it within Europe, if it chooses."
First, the bank Tax has not been shelved as you, yourself, indicate in the next sentence.
Second, as it turns out, China, Japan and Brazil, the second and third biggest economies and another very big economy are against it. I don't recall Harper or his Ministers lobbying these countries and the countries he and his Ministers did lobby (France, England, US, Germany) are still in favour of it. So, how can you say that Canada campaign won support or somehow it is a victory for Harper. It, in reality, had nothing to do with Canada and it is only 'Con Messaging' that suggest Harper, Flarherty and the Con's had anything to do with it.
Also, is it any real co-incidence that right after the meeting of the Finance Ministers in South Korea on the weekend the Bank of Montreal on 8 June sent out an advisory to certain clients:
"Go to Cash – In Plain English
Summary
We advocate switching out of equity positions and going to cash. The European sovereign debt crisis appears to be nowhere near over. The global credit environment is worsening. Cost of capital is going up and availability is going down. There are large gaps between where the credit market prices risk and where the equity market is priced. Equity is lagging the deterioration in credit conditions. Moves in currency, equity and commodity markets are mirroring the moves in the credit market. Global growth, in a credit-constrained environment, will slow. Profits will be squeezed by the higher cost of capital. "
(see: http://www.scribd.com/doc/32708043/Go-To-Cash
In a time when all economy based countries ought to be co-operating and working together to an even greater degree, Harper, Flarherty and the Con's are sowing the seeds of discontent, and bragging about it. I guess we have indeed become a player on the International scene, but the game we are playing is not right (morally) and indeed could lead to our disaster. But, then, one of basic strategies of the International Con Movement is to capitalize on disaster.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Harper's bank-tax victory has left some scars, Campbell Clark, Globe and Mail Update, Jun. 09, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/harpers-bank-tax-victory-has-left-some-scars/article1598602/
"But they have been the most resistant to Canada’s proposal for common interim deficit targets, according to officials from several G20 countries. In meetings of G20 sherpas, they say they’ll deal with deficit targets inside Europe. Other participants say it’s a response to Canada’s bank-tax opposition. “The Europeans quite easily say, ‘Just like you said on the [bank tax] issue, you can do that if you want, but we don’t need to,’ ” one official from a G20 country said.
. . .
G20 countries are going their separate ways."
So:
The result of all of Stephen Harper's efforts regarding the Bank Tax, including Canada spending billions on the summits, is to fuel discord amongst the G20 countries, to give each an excuse to 'go their own way',go back to unilateralism, isolationism, protectionism, to undo years of work getting economically based countries together to co-operate.
This, of course, is the first steps to individual protectionism, which everyone says is the worst thing that could happen to the world economies. That's nice. Thanks Steve.
"The U.S. and European bank-tax backers had hoped to bypass the Toronto summit, and the host’s opposition, and push it at the November summit in Seoul. Then Canada’s campaign won support, and the bank tax was shelved at last weekend’s meeting of finance ministers in South Korea. But the G20 didn’t adopt it or kill it – they agreed to go their separate ways – Europe can do it within Europe, if it chooses."
First, the bank Tax has not been shelved as you, yourself, indicate in the next sentence.
Second, as it turns out, China, Japan and Brazil, the second and third biggest economies and another very big economy are against it. I don't recall Harper or his Ministers lobbying these countries and the countries he and his Ministers did lobby (France, England, US, Germany) are still in favour of it. So, how can you say that Canada campaign won support or somehow it is a victory for Harper. It, in reality, had nothing to do with Canada and it is only 'Con Messaging' that suggest Harper, Flarherty and the Con's had anything to do with it.
Also, is it any real co-incidence that right after the meeting of the Finance Ministers in South Korea on the weekend the Bank of Montreal on 8 June sent out an advisory to certain clients:
"Go to Cash – In Plain English
Summary
We advocate switching out of equity positions and going to cash. The European sovereign debt crisis appears to be nowhere near over. The global credit environment is worsening. Cost of capital is going up and availability is going down. There are large gaps between where the credit market prices risk and where the equity market is priced. Equity is lagging the deterioration in credit conditions. Moves in currency, equity and commodity markets are mirroring the moves in the credit market. Global growth, in a credit-constrained environment, will slow. Profits will be squeezed by the higher cost of capital. "
(see: http://www.scribd.com/doc/32708043/Go-To-Cash
In a time when all economy based countries ought to be co-operating and working together to an even greater degree, Harper, Flarherty and the Con's are sowing the seeds of discontent, and bragging about it. I guess we have indeed become a player on the International scene, but the game we are playing is not right (morally) and indeed could lead to our disaster. But, then, one of basic strategies of the International Con Movement is to capitalize on disaster.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- What a Con Harper Weaves
Submitted: 7:14am, PST, 10 Jun.'10 The Toronto Star
Hepburn: Harper’s political demise starts at G20 fiasco, Jun 10 2010, Bob Hepburn, The Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/821416--hepburn-harper-s-political-demise-starts-at-g20-fiasco
When you're right (morally), you're right (morally). Thanks, Bob, Good Article.
And, when you're a right wing, extremist ideologue who does everything for narrow partizan reasons and Canadians be damned, you're a right wing, extremist ideologue who does everything for narrow partizan reasons and Canadians be damned. Thanks, Stepho, thanks, Jimbo, for making us world players (does that mean I will get cheaper overseas hotel rates).
I think it is more a question of Canadians finally turning their attention to the damage Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and all the Con's are doing to this great nation of ours and what a Con they have been handing us with their 'Messaging'.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Hepburn: Harper’s political demise starts at G20 fiasco, Jun 10 2010, Bob Hepburn, The Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/821416--hepburn-harper-s-political-demise-starts-at-g20-fiasco
When you're right (morally), you're right (morally). Thanks, Bob, Good Article.
And, when you're a right wing, extremist ideologue who does everything for narrow partizan reasons and Canadians be damned, you're a right wing, extremist ideologue who does everything for narrow partizan reasons and Canadians be damned. Thanks, Stepho, thanks, Jimbo, for making us world players (does that mean I will get cheaper overseas hotel rates).
I think it is more a question of Canadians finally turning their attention to the damage Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and all the Con's are doing to this great nation of ours and what a Con they have been handing us with their 'Messaging'.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
09 June, 2010
- The Harper 'Cost-Benefit' Con: Cost = all Canadians; Benefit = Harper and the Con's
Submitted: 10:41am, PDT, 9 Jun.'10 CBC News
Minimum sentencing rules could cost provinces, Fewer plea bargains will mean more trials, critic says, June 9, 2010, Alison Crawford, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/09/minimum-sentence-costs.html
"New Brunswick Attorney General Kelly Lamrock says he expects his province alone will incur an extra $2 million a year in prosecutorial costs.
"In our province we've gotten our crime rate down. We've done it by being tough on the causes of crime as well as being tough on criminals when they deserve it," he said.
"If they're going to pass on millions of costs, on doing it their way, New Brunswickers would respectfully ask that if they're overruling us on the best way to keep ourselves safe, then frankly they should gamble their dimes on it."
He says the federal government has not yet acknowledged these extra costs.
"The only response we got is someone said, 'Well, we've increased funding for the health-care system, so you should be able to absorb it.' But obviously those calculations weren't done with this in mind.""
Hey Canada
How about some cost-benefit analysis instead of blindly implementing extreme right wing agenda of Stephen Harper.
The Harper tough on Crime is a prime example of ideology based policies without any consideration for who has to pay the price and whether there will be any real benefit for all Canadians.
As it turns out Stephen Harper and the Con's have nothing to support their position to say that it is in the best interest of all Canadians. In fact, all the evidence points to the exact opposite. This is illustrated by the Report just released (Sep.'09) by Graham Stewart, Prof Michael Jackson, et al.
The response by the Con’s, “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” then Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan (to CBC). You got that Right Van Loan.
The difference:
rationally based polices that have been vetted for benefit of all Canadians
v.
a right wing, extremist philosophy with a significant Theocratic element, thus blurring the separation of state and Church, appealing to a small but well defined segment of society.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Minimum sentencing rules could cost provinces, Fewer plea bargains will mean more trials, critic says, June 9, 2010, Alison Crawford, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/09/minimum-sentence-costs.html
"New Brunswick Attorney General Kelly Lamrock says he expects his province alone will incur an extra $2 million a year in prosecutorial costs.
"In our province we've gotten our crime rate down. We've done it by being tough on the causes of crime as well as being tough on criminals when they deserve it," he said.
"If they're going to pass on millions of costs, on doing it their way, New Brunswickers would respectfully ask that if they're overruling us on the best way to keep ourselves safe, then frankly they should gamble their dimes on it."
He says the federal government has not yet acknowledged these extra costs.
"The only response we got is someone said, 'Well, we've increased funding for the health-care system, so you should be able to absorb it.' But obviously those calculations weren't done with this in mind.""
Hey Canada
How about some cost-benefit analysis instead of blindly implementing extreme right wing agenda of Stephen Harper.
The Harper tough on Crime is a prime example of ideology based policies without any consideration for who has to pay the price and whether there will be any real benefit for all Canadians.
As it turns out Stephen Harper and the Con's have nothing to support their position to say that it is in the best interest of all Canadians. In fact, all the evidence points to the exact opposite. This is illustrated by the Report just released (Sep.'09) by Graham Stewart, Prof Michael Jackson, et al.
The response by the Con’s, “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” then Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan (to CBC). You got that Right Van Loan.
The difference:
rationally based polices that have been vetted for benefit of all Canadians
v.
a right wing, extremist philosophy with a significant Theocratic element, thus blurring the separation of state and Church, appealing to a small but well defined segment of society.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
08 June, 2010
- Flaherty, Don't Blame Us for Canada's Financial Well-Being it Was Those Liberals, We Had Nothing To Do With It, We Opposed it All The Way
Posted: 6/8/2010 3:03:21 PM the Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canada-the-teacher-as-uk-prepares-for-budget-blitzkrieg/article1595455/
Canada the teacher as U.K. prepares for budget blitzkrieg
Don't tell me, you don't need to spend 2 billion of tax payers' hard earned money to be a "player". That's right, you only need be right (morally right that is).
"While the new British government received advice from Mr. Flaherty, it was Paul Martin, the Liberal government’s finance minister between 1993 and 2002, who is credited with setting the model deficit-elimination effort in the mid-1990s. In an interview Monday, he [Paul Martin] said he is not formally advising governments on how to cut their deficits without triggering social turmoil, but he admitted that he has had “numerous discussions with various European governments, all informally, and I have certainly talked to people in the U.K.” "
Jim Flaherty giving the Chretien-Martin Liberals credit for Canada's economic well being (at least up until the Con's took over) along with touting Canada's strong banking system which is the result to the Cretien-Martin Liberals - my impression of Flaherty has increased and I feel guilty for slamming him so often (well not quite - I'll wait till he crosses the floor).
Interesting that the British apparently make no mention of the Harper-Flaherty two pronged financial policy and plan to eliminate the deficit in Canada:
- allowing the economy to grow out of it, even if it takes 6 years; and,
- stripping Canada of direly needed funds by reducing the GST and slashing of Corporate taxes.
(Just an aside: if I recall in '08 the British announced a reduction in the VAT = GST, but they made it temporary for one year. Harper and the Con's wjehen trying to justify their reduction of the GST pointed out that the British reduced their VAT, but, seemed to have miss that it was temporary - tisk, tisk)
I wonder if it was the Harper-Flaherty economic policies that Flaherty was really trying to push off on the British in Korea on the weekend. If so, the British are having none of it. Perhaps Flaherty is just looking for a new job - o.k. by me.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canada-the-teacher-as-uk-prepares-for-budget-blitzkrieg/article1595455/
Canada the teacher as U.K. prepares for budget blitzkrieg
Don't tell me, you don't need to spend 2 billion of tax payers' hard earned money to be a "player". That's right, you only need be right (morally right that is).
"While the new British government received advice from Mr. Flaherty, it was Paul Martin, the Liberal government’s finance minister between 1993 and 2002, who is credited with setting the model deficit-elimination effort in the mid-1990s. In an interview Monday, he [Paul Martin] said he is not formally advising governments on how to cut their deficits without triggering social turmoil, but he admitted that he has had “numerous discussions with various European governments, all informally, and I have certainly talked to people in the U.K.” "
Jim Flaherty giving the Chretien-Martin Liberals credit for Canada's economic well being (at least up until the Con's took over) along with touting Canada's strong banking system which is the result to the Cretien-Martin Liberals - my impression of Flaherty has increased and I feel guilty for slamming him so often (well not quite - I'll wait till he crosses the floor).
Interesting that the British apparently make no mention of the Harper-Flaherty two pronged financial policy and plan to eliminate the deficit in Canada:
- allowing the economy to grow out of it, even if it takes 6 years; and,
- stripping Canada of direly needed funds by reducing the GST and slashing of Corporate taxes.
(Just an aside: if I recall in '08 the British announced a reduction in the VAT = GST, but they made it temporary for one year. Harper and the Con's wjehen trying to justify their reduction of the GST pointed out that the British reduced their VAT, but, seemed to have miss that it was temporary - tisk, tisk)
I wonder if it was the Harper-Flaherty economic policies that Flaherty was really trying to push off on the British in Korea on the weekend. If so, the British are having none of it. Perhaps Flaherty is just looking for a new job - o.k. by me.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- News Flash! Harper fails the 'Good Government' Test
Posted: 6/8/2010 10:42:30 AM The Globe and Mail
Harper Tories pounce on Ignatieff’s leadership,
Jane Taber, 8 Jun.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-tories-pounce-on-ignatieffs-leadership/article1595961/
Tab 18
Stephen Harper is, once again, applying the 'Flanagan Principle' - it doesn't have to be true, it only has to sound plausible.
Lets be rational about this.
It is not likely that Ignatieff would give Maurizio Bevilacqua carte-blanche to commit the Liberal Party without reporting back to the Party for approval.
The only people that are likely to believe the line that Harper and the Con's are giving are the 33% die-hards who don't care about the truth of the matter and support Harper and the Con's no matter what. These are the ones that keep Harper in power and provide the 'unlimited' funding. Of course, these 'messages' are designed for their consumption and, hey, if a few others fall for it, all the better.
Looking at issue in a rational, logical fashion, with the good of all Canadians as the objective, then discussing it and seeking and considering real and meaningful input, especially from those who have been elected, and oathed, to do precisely that, is not a question of "Governing is about making difficult choices", it is simply "Good Government". Heavy-handed, absolute control and suppression by a leader imposing his personal beliefs is not "Good Government" it's anti-democratic, despotic autocracy and in the case at hand, verging on theocracy.
The test for "Good Government" is:
Any action taken by the government must be based on the particular issue at hand and all its relevant circumstance must be weighed in an objective, detached and dispassionate fashion, taking into consideration the opinions from all sides. It must operate in an open, transparent fashion based on the free flow of information, unobstructed and unaltered so that the people may know, understand and formulate their opinions.
To the reasonable person this is only fair and just, enlightened. To the extremist it is weakness, indecisiveness, in the vernacular, ‘dithering’.
Apply this to anything Harper does and what do you get.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Harper Tories pounce on Ignatieff’s leadership,
Jane Taber, 8 Jun.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-tories-pounce-on-ignatieffs-leadership/article1595961/
Tab 18
Stephen Harper is, once again, applying the 'Flanagan Principle' - it doesn't have to be true, it only has to sound plausible.
Lets be rational about this.
It is not likely that Ignatieff would give Maurizio Bevilacqua carte-blanche to commit the Liberal Party without reporting back to the Party for approval.
The only people that are likely to believe the line that Harper and the Con's are giving are the 33% die-hards who don't care about the truth of the matter and support Harper and the Con's no matter what. These are the ones that keep Harper in power and provide the 'unlimited' funding. Of course, these 'messages' are designed for their consumption and, hey, if a few others fall for it, all the better.
Looking at issue in a rational, logical fashion, with the good of all Canadians as the objective, then discussing it and seeking and considering real and meaningful input, especially from those who have been elected, and oathed, to do precisely that, is not a question of "Governing is about making difficult choices", it is simply "Good Government". Heavy-handed, absolute control and suppression by a leader imposing his personal beliefs is not "Good Government" it's anti-democratic, despotic autocracy and in the case at hand, verging on theocracy.
The test for "Good Government" is:
Any action taken by the government must be based on the particular issue at hand and all its relevant circumstance must be weighed in an objective, detached and dispassionate fashion, taking into consideration the opinions from all sides. It must operate in an open, transparent fashion based on the free flow of information, unobstructed and unaltered so that the people may know, understand and formulate their opinions.
To the reasonable person this is only fair and just, enlightened. To the extremist it is weakness, indecisiveness, in the vernacular, ‘dithering’.
Apply this to anything Harper does and what do you get.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
07 June, 2010
- Where Have All the Whistle-Blowers Gone . . .
Posted: 9:41pm PDT, 7 Jun.'10 CBC News
PMO scripted Afghan mission message: records, June 7, 2010, The Canadian Press http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/07/cp-bottled-messages-pmo-afghanistan.html
This is, of course, outrageous.
How can we trust anything that comes out the Public Service under the Harper Regime that tends to support the government's actions and polices while Stephen Harper and the Con's are in control.
If ever there were a time for whistle blowers to come forward it is now, before confidence in the Executive Branch of government, and thus Civil Service generally, is totally undermined, by Harper and his Con's. Wait didn't Harper campaign on protecting whistle-blowers . . . no I must be dreaming.
So, then what's the problem then.
The key to all this is:
". . . said a senior government official who worked in the PCO but asked not to be named because of fears of career reprisals."
This is just one element of the greatest propaganda machines Western Democracies have seen in recent history.
And it illustrates the purpose of Harper's obscuration, obstruction and obfuscation of the truth. You can't control the message and "message event proposals" lose their impact if people know the truth.
Another area that might be useful to look into are the economic numbers that seem to suggest that Harper's policies are working. It used to be that "numbers don't lie" but now it looks very much like "don't believe everything you read" and "with statistics and control of the information you can 'prove' anything".
But, Canadians have no one to blame but ourselves, we put Harper in power and we let him stay in power.
Lloyd MacILquham
PMO scripted Afghan mission message: records, June 7, 2010, The Canadian Press http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/07/cp-bottled-messages-pmo-afghanistan.html
This is, of course, outrageous.
How can we trust anything that comes out the Public Service under the Harper Regime that tends to support the government's actions and polices while Stephen Harper and the Con's are in control.
If ever there were a time for whistle blowers to come forward it is now, before confidence in the Executive Branch of government, and thus Civil Service generally, is totally undermined, by Harper and his Con's. Wait didn't Harper campaign on protecting whistle-blowers . . . no I must be dreaming.
So, then what's the problem then.
The key to all this is:
". . . said a senior government official who worked in the PCO but asked not to be named because of fears of career reprisals."
This is just one element of the greatest propaganda machines Western Democracies have seen in recent history.
And it illustrates the purpose of Harper's obscuration, obstruction and obfuscation of the truth. You can't control the message and "message event proposals" lose their impact if people know the truth.
Another area that might be useful to look into are the economic numbers that seem to suggest that Harper's policies are working. It used to be that "numbers don't lie" but now it looks very much like "don't believe everything you read" and "with statistics and control of the information you can 'prove' anything".
But, Canadians have no one to blame but ourselves, we put Harper in power and we let him stay in power.
Lloyd MacILquham
- Harper, the Con That Bored
Submitted: 7:54am, PDT, 7 Jun.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/05/bank-tax-proposal.html
G20 ministers end push for global bank tax
'Most G20 members do not support the concept,' Flaherty says
Last Updated: Saturday, June 5, 2010 | 6:51 PM ET Comments478Recommend101.
CBC News
"The move is considered a victory for Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, who has been a vocal opponent of the tax proposal from the International Monetary Fund.
. . . Opposition to the tax also came from G20 members such as Japan, Brazil, China and Australia."
Tell me this:
If the second, third largest economies as well as, Brazil, which is amongst the top, supported the tax would there be a victory for Jim Flaherty to claim.
I don't recall any Minister going to these countries to lobby them.
There is, if I recall, England, France, German, India, South Korea that Canadian tax payers paid large amounts for Minsters to visit to lobby, to little effect. When in fact, with China, Japan against it anyway, thus assuring it not be adopted, in actuality, these would serve no real purpose.
Seems to me that Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty are riding on other countries coat-tails, trying to take credit for something they really have very little right to so do.
These aren't the first coat-tails that Harper has jumped on. Recall his reasons for taking no action on Global Warming, he wants to wait to see what the Americans are doing to do the same thing. Now, Prentice is trying to suggest that the Harper government is actually shaping the American policy, as opposed to being notified of it.
That is, in a word, Canadians are being Con'd once again by Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty.
What about the Fleherty "embedded contingent capital". What kind of reception is that getting.
Also, I guess that means we can cancel the G20 now.
If Harper and Flaherty could achieve this victory by shuttle diplomacy (which governments engages in, usually when they feel they are at the end of their run - a kind of International legacy.) why the Billions.
Surely that can't be an example of putting your fiscal house in order.
Wouldn't it be wiser, and fiscally prudent, to try the shuttle diplomacy and see what happens then, if unsuccessful and the end justifies the expense take more elaborate steps (i.e, the rational-national approach - a cost-benefit analysis with the objective of benefiting all Canadians).
Let's cancel the G8+20 and start over again and do it right (morally).
A good first step would be getting rid of Harper and his Con's. Then, after putting our financial house back in order, we could take it from there.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/05/bank-tax-proposal.html
G20 ministers end push for global bank tax
'Most G20 members do not support the concept,' Flaherty says
Last Updated: Saturday, June 5, 2010 | 6:51 PM ET Comments478Recommend101.
CBC News
"The move is considered a victory for Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, who has been a vocal opponent of the tax proposal from the International Monetary Fund.
. . . Opposition to the tax also came from G20 members such as Japan, Brazil, China and Australia."
Tell me this:
If the second, third largest economies as well as, Brazil, which is amongst the top, supported the tax would there be a victory for Jim Flaherty to claim.
I don't recall any Minister going to these countries to lobby them.
There is, if I recall, England, France, German, India, South Korea that Canadian tax payers paid large amounts for Minsters to visit to lobby, to little effect. When in fact, with China, Japan against it anyway, thus assuring it not be adopted, in actuality, these would serve no real purpose.
Seems to me that Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty are riding on other countries coat-tails, trying to take credit for something they really have very little right to so do.
These aren't the first coat-tails that Harper has jumped on. Recall his reasons for taking no action on Global Warming, he wants to wait to see what the Americans are doing to do the same thing. Now, Prentice is trying to suggest that the Harper government is actually shaping the American policy, as opposed to being notified of it.
That is, in a word, Canadians are being Con'd once again by Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty.
What about the Fleherty "embedded contingent capital". What kind of reception is that getting.
Also, I guess that means we can cancel the G20 now.
If Harper and Flaherty could achieve this victory by shuttle diplomacy (which governments engages in, usually when they feel they are at the end of their run - a kind of International legacy.) why the Billions.
Surely that can't be an example of putting your fiscal house in order.
Wouldn't it be wiser, and fiscally prudent, to try the shuttle diplomacy and see what happens then, if unsuccessful and the end justifies the expense take more elaborate steps (i.e, the rational-national approach - a cost-benefit analysis with the objective of benefiting all Canadians).
Let's cancel the G8+20 and start over again and do it right (morally).
A good first step would be getting rid of Harper and his Con's. Then, after putting our financial house back in order, we could take it from there.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper's Boondoggle Bash - Cancelled??? We can Only Hope
Posted: 6/7/2010 9:56:17 AM Globe and Mail
Finance minister says it is the price that must be paid for Canada to be on world stage, The Canadian Press, 7 Jun.'10,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/economy/flaherty-defends-g20-costs/article1594580/Tab 1
"Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says the cost of the G20 and G8 summits this month is the price that must be paid for Canada to be on the world stage."
I don't recall Harper or Flaherty asking me if I wanted to be a player.
Also, if Harper didn't have that very special in-your-face, my-way-or-the-high-way diplomacy, perhaps Canada would not have to spend billions to taken seriously.
Let's reveal this Con for what it really is. All Canadians are paying a very large amount of money for Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty, Clament, Baird, and all the Con's, to be players on the world stage. They are not promoting Canada. They are promoting themselves and their extreme right wing agenda. How many photo-op's do you think Ignatieff, Bob Rae or even Layton will get. Now, Harper, apparently, is pledging 1 billion for his theo-Con based family planning, provided other governments do similar. This is not a victory for Canada.
With all the lobbying that Harper and Flaherty have done apparently the G20 now are going to allow each country to decide if they want to implement the bank Tax (lets see if the G20 decide to embrace Flaherty's proposal: "embedded contingent capital").
So, I guess that means we can cancel the G20 now.
Why did Harper and Flaherty have to spend billions when they apparently got about as good as they could possibly expect without spending that kind of money (I'm assuming).
"[Stephen Harper] insisted Canada "will lead the way" in the coming G8 and G20 summits to push for countries to get their fiscal houses in order.
Let's do that now, before the G8+20. Cancel it. Send a few small party bags, a glossy or two (and perhaps a Resume, you never know).
I wonder what would happen if there were a non-confidence vote before the G8+20.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Finance minister says it is the price that must be paid for Canada to be on world stage, The Canadian Press, 7 Jun.'10,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/economy/flaherty-defends-g20-costs/article1594580/Tab 1
"Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says the cost of the G20 and G8 summits this month is the price that must be paid for Canada to be on the world stage."
I don't recall Harper or Flaherty asking me if I wanted to be a player.
Also, if Harper didn't have that very special in-your-face, my-way-or-the-high-way diplomacy, perhaps Canada would not have to spend billions to taken seriously.
Let's reveal this Con for what it really is. All Canadians are paying a very large amount of money for Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty, Clament, Baird, and all the Con's, to be players on the world stage. They are not promoting Canada. They are promoting themselves and their extreme right wing agenda. How many photo-op's do you think Ignatieff, Bob Rae or even Layton will get. Now, Harper, apparently, is pledging 1 billion for his theo-Con based family planning, provided other governments do similar. This is not a victory for Canada.
With all the lobbying that Harper and Flaherty have done apparently the G20 now are going to allow each country to decide if they want to implement the bank Tax (lets see if the G20 decide to embrace Flaherty's proposal: "embedded contingent capital").
So, I guess that means we can cancel the G20 now.
Why did Harper and Flaherty have to spend billions when they apparently got about as good as they could possibly expect without spending that kind of money (I'm assuming).
"[Stephen Harper] insisted Canada "will lead the way" in the coming G8 and G20 summits to push for countries to get their fiscal houses in order.
Let's do that now, before the G8+20. Cancel it. Send a few small party bags, a glossy or two (and perhaps a Resume, you never know).
I wonder what would happen if there were a non-confidence vote before the G8+20.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
03 June, 2010
- Canada yes! Harper, no!
Submitted: 7:54am, PDT, 3 Jun.'10 CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/02/ekos-poll.html
Conservative support ebbs slightly: poll
Last Updated: Thursday, June 3, 2010 | 5:08 AM ET Comments162Recommend48.
CBC News
31.7 per cent of respondents said they would back the Conservatives, while the Liberals remain stuck in the mid-20s with 26.2 per cent.
49.2 per cent of Canadians polled say the country is moving in the right direction and 39.1 per cent say it's moving in the wrong direction
38.9 per cent of Canadians said the government is moving in the right direction, while 48 per cent of respondents believe it is moving in the wrong direction.
Almost 75 per cent of Conservative Party supporters said the government was going in the right direction, according to the poll.
**
31.7% support the Con's is simply a manifestation (within the margin of error) of the 33% die-hard Con supporters that would support the Con's no matter what, even Harper abandoning Conservatism for personal power and ambition.
What this also means is that of the 38.9% that feel the government is going in the right direction approx 24 points of it are these die-hard Con supporters. In other words, after making this 'die-hard Con' adjustment, at most 14% can be assumed to feel that the government is going in the right direction for non partizan reasons - i.e., based on some kind of objective rationality.
This conclusion is re-enforced by the result that while 50% think Canada is going in the right (morally) direction the only ones that feel it is because Harper and his Con's are doing a good job is 38.9%.
Another interesting things is only 75% of Con supporters feel that Harper is doing a good job. In other words of the 31.7% die-hard Con supporters only 24% are Harper supporters and 8% points aren't. Sounds like a bit of discontent on the Con front. Perhaps these people are dissatisfied with Harper being a closet Con.
Of course, Harper has a strong motive - he strongly suspects that if he dared reveal to the good people of Canada his true intents he would most likely get the boot, and forthwith. Hey Harper, when you're right you're right.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/02/ekos-poll.html
Conservative support ebbs slightly: poll
Last Updated: Thursday, June 3, 2010 | 5:08 AM ET Comments162Recommend48.
CBC News
31.7 per cent of respondents said they would back the Conservatives, while the Liberals remain stuck in the mid-20s with 26.2 per cent.
49.2 per cent of Canadians polled say the country is moving in the right direction and 39.1 per cent say it's moving in the wrong direction
38.9 per cent of Canadians said the government is moving in the right direction, while 48 per cent of respondents believe it is moving in the wrong direction.
Almost 75 per cent of Conservative Party supporters said the government was going in the right direction, according to the poll.
**
31.7% support the Con's is simply a manifestation (within the margin of error) of the 33% die-hard Con supporters that would support the Con's no matter what, even Harper abandoning Conservatism for personal power and ambition.
What this also means is that of the 38.9% that feel the government is going in the right direction approx 24 points of it are these die-hard Con supporters. In other words, after making this 'die-hard Con' adjustment, at most 14% can be assumed to feel that the government is going in the right direction for non partizan reasons - i.e., based on some kind of objective rationality.
This conclusion is re-enforced by the result that while 50% think Canada is going in the right (morally) direction the only ones that feel it is because Harper and his Con's are doing a good job is 38.9%.
Another interesting things is only 75% of Con supporters feel that Harper is doing a good job. In other words of the 31.7% die-hard Con supporters only 24% are Harper supporters and 8% points aren't. Sounds like a bit of discontent on the Con front. Perhaps these people are dissatisfied with Harper being a closet Con.
Of course, Harper has a strong motive - he strongly suspects that if he dared reveal to the good people of Canada his true intents he would most likely get the boot, and forthwith. Hey Harper, when you're right you're right.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper Enforcer John Baird is nothing but a big mouth bully.
Submitted: 7:21am, PDT, 3 Jun.'10, CBC News
Ministers' appearance sparks committee chaos, June 2, 2010, CBC News,
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/02/jaffer-committee-ministers-appearance-baird-paradis-goodyear.html
Watching the footage on the news last night just re-inforces that John Baird is nothing but a big mouth bully. When it gets right done to it, What has Baird contributed to this great nation of ours.
The thing I don't understand is how Canadians can watch this video and know that John Baird is running this country.
In the Bizarro world of MacLeans Magazine "Be it so moved then that John Baird is a charming fellow." (see: Parliamentarian of the Year: John Baird, The charming Conservative, MacLeans.ca). They must be desperate. You have to admit that it is a big co-incidence that Baird would be receiving such an award, especially given the very dubious merits which this incident at the Committee illustrates and given the possibility of Baird being involved in the Jaffer affair.
There is no doubt that Baird is the epitome of a Con and one of Harper's (along with Peter MacKay) top implementers of the Con strategy of vicious personal attack on anyone that dares stand up to them (i.e. enforcer thu 'bullying' tactics)
Keep in mind that:
The only possible reason Harper and the Con's would take such a strong stance against witnesses testifying in front of a Committee can be that they are afraid of what these people have to say.
Harper and the Con's try to say that some of these assistants are 20 years old and being thrown against hardened MP's. In a Court of Law they would competent (assumingly) and compellable and their testimony could be cogent.
Harper and the Con's are also trying to suggest that the Minister is responsible and so it is the Minister that should testify.
There is no doubt that Minister Baird is responsible.
But, lets get the truth out there then hold the Minister accountable.
The big logical gap in the Con's position is the first part - getting the truth out there. Once again they are doing everything they can to obscure, obstruct, intimidate and try to prevent Canadians from learning the truth.
For the Jaffer case from what has come out so far it is not surprising that John Baird might be one of the the most concerned about the truth getting out. And, he may very well be the reason Harper has been going to such an extreme to keep the lid on this whole sordid affair. If he loses Baird, Harper and the Con's will have a big problem with their credibility in Ontario and could easily lose the next election. Perhaps Harper has ordered Baird to "your the reason we have to hide the truth, so, handle it".
This, of course, explains Baird loosing it at Committee yesterday.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Ministers' appearance sparks committee chaos, June 2, 2010, CBC News,
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/02/jaffer-committee-ministers-appearance-baird-paradis-goodyear.html
Watching the footage on the news last night just re-inforces that John Baird is nothing but a big mouth bully. When it gets right done to it, What has Baird contributed to this great nation of ours.
The thing I don't understand is how Canadians can watch this video and know that John Baird is running this country.
In the Bizarro world of MacLeans Magazine "Be it so moved then that John Baird is a charming fellow." (see: Parliamentarian of the Year: John Baird, The charming Conservative, MacLeans.ca). They must be desperate. You have to admit that it is a big co-incidence that Baird would be receiving such an award, especially given the very dubious merits which this incident at the Committee illustrates and given the possibility of Baird being involved in the Jaffer affair.
There is no doubt that Baird is the epitome of a Con and one of Harper's (along with Peter MacKay) top implementers of the Con strategy of vicious personal attack on anyone that dares stand up to them (i.e. enforcer thu 'bullying' tactics)
Keep in mind that:
The only possible reason Harper and the Con's would take such a strong stance against witnesses testifying in front of a Committee can be that they are afraid of what these people have to say.
Harper and the Con's try to say that some of these assistants are 20 years old and being thrown against hardened MP's. In a Court of Law they would competent (assumingly) and compellable and their testimony could be cogent.
Harper and the Con's are also trying to suggest that the Minister is responsible and so it is the Minister that should testify.
There is no doubt that Minister Baird is responsible.
But, lets get the truth out there then hold the Minister accountable.
The big logical gap in the Con's position is the first part - getting the truth out there. Once again they are doing everything they can to obscure, obstruct, intimidate and try to prevent Canadians from learning the truth.
For the Jaffer case from what has come out so far it is not surprising that John Baird might be one of the the most concerned about the truth getting out. And, he may very well be the reason Harper has been going to such an extreme to keep the lid on this whole sordid affair. If he loses Baird, Harper and the Con's will have a big problem with their credibility in Ontario and could easily lose the next election. Perhaps Harper has ordered Baird to "your the reason we have to hide the truth, so, handle it".
This, of course, explains Baird loosing it at Committee yesterday.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
02 June, 2010
- Harper's Quebec, 'if you can't beat them, marginalize 'em'
Posted: 9:36 AM, PDT, 2 Jun.'10 National Post [867 char]
NDP coalition talk highlights clash between Ignatieff and Rae, Chris Wattie/Reuters
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/01/john-ivison-ndp-coaltion-talk-highights-clash-between-ignatieff-and-rae/
Yesterday I posted "Amazing, just a little while ago I was explaining to someone that a formal coalition between the Liberals and NDP might get my attention as long as they got rid of Layton first. I wounder how many others feel that way. How many Liberals who have had to fight bitterly with Layton over the last 4 or 5 elections would be willing to support him with any real and meaningful sincerity - ask Scott Reid what he thinks. After his accusation against Martin in '04(?) I pretty much lost all respect for the guy [Layton]."
So, it appears that Liberals might require the NDP to get rid of Layton; and, given Ignatieff's 'paucity-of-popularity', and in a 'tit-for-tat', NDP'ers might require the Liberals get rid of Ignatieff. I full- heartedly support the former but I don't endorse the latter.
Posted: 9:35 AM on June 2, 2010 [720 char]
No matter what Harper and the Con's are going to campaign on the Liberals and NDP forming a co-alition, along with the Block, after the election to dispose the Con's in violation of the will of the people - I know, not much of a prediction. The point is that the Liberals should be up front on their plans, make it part of their platform in order to try to minimize the effects of the mis-information attack ads. Also, Harper's position on the Block supporting the government, despite how hypocritical and how diametrically opposed to his previous 'positions-of-convenience', in effect, dis-enfrancizes almost 1.4 million Canadian voters - if you can't beat them, marginalize 'em.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
NDP coalition talk highlights clash between Ignatieff and Rae, Chris Wattie/Reuters
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/01/john-ivison-ndp-coaltion-talk-highights-clash-between-ignatieff-and-rae/
Yesterday I posted "Amazing, just a little while ago I was explaining to someone that a formal coalition between the Liberals and NDP might get my attention as long as they got rid of Layton first. I wounder how many others feel that way. How many Liberals who have had to fight bitterly with Layton over the last 4 or 5 elections would be willing to support him with any real and meaningful sincerity - ask Scott Reid what he thinks. After his accusation against Martin in '04(?) I pretty much lost all respect for the guy [Layton]."
So, it appears that Liberals might require the NDP to get rid of Layton; and, given Ignatieff's 'paucity-of-popularity', and in a 'tit-for-tat', NDP'ers might require the Liberals get rid of Ignatieff. I full- heartedly support the former but I don't endorse the latter.
Posted: 9:35 AM on June 2, 2010 [720 char]
No matter what Harper and the Con's are going to campaign on the Liberals and NDP forming a co-alition, along with the Block, after the election to dispose the Con's in violation of the will of the people - I know, not much of a prediction. The point is that the Liberals should be up front on their plans, make it part of their platform in order to try to minimize the effects of the mis-information attack ads. Also, Harper's position on the Block supporting the government, despite how hypocritical and how diametrically opposed to his previous 'positions-of-convenience', in effect, dis-enfrancizes almost 1.4 million Canadian voters - if you can't beat them, marginalize 'em.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
01 June, 2010
- A coalition lead by Layton??? - AM I Reading That Right
6/1/2010 10:51:08 AM The Globe and Mail
Young Liberal pushes 'Stop Harper' coalition; Conservatives brag on economy, Jane Taber, 1 Jun.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/young-liberal-pushes-stop-harper-coalition-conservatives-brag-on-economy/article1587660/ Tab 31
A coalition lead by Layton???
Amazing, just a little while ago I was explaining to someone that a formal coalition between the Liberals and NDP might get my attention as long as they got rid of Layton first. I wounder how many others feel that way. How many Liberals who have had to fight bitterly with Layton over the last 4 or 5 elections would be willing to support him with any real and meaningful sincerity - ask Scott Reid what he thinks. After his accusation against Martin in '04(?) I pretty much lost all respect for the guy.
This result seems to be based on people in Quebec leaving the Block and voting NDP because of Layton. It may well be because the NDP is left of centre and Layton is well identified leader - as opposed to Ignatieff. This is supported by a co-alition with Bob Rae leading the Liberals would end up in a tie.
It seems to me that people should be considering a new Party altogether - Liberal Democrat has a certain ring to it.
And, who better than our youth to do it.
After being in power for 10 years or so, it may be a Party becomes top heavy with people who have the power and influence and not only feel they still know how to do things but they want to be the one that single-handedly brings the Party back to power. Not only do they not understand on an intuitive, anything other than lip service, level changes that the nation has undergone politically, economically, socially and outlook, they are closed to anything new, since, well quite frankly they know it all.
It apparently takes around 8 years for the Party to break up this hardening and rid themselves of this and allow the up and comers who not only intuitively understand the new landscape, they are 'hungry' and willing to work and to learn, and adapt to, what it takes to not only approach the people in the fashion they understand but also to, themselves understand, on a fundamental level, and identify with their concerns and the issues of the day that the people feel are important.
The problem is that if Harper and his Con's are in power long term, there may very well be no more Canada as a nation to run. Terminal and irreversible damage will have been inflicted on the Corpus Nationalis.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Young Liberal pushes 'Stop Harper' coalition; Conservatives brag on economy, Jane Taber, 1 Jun.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/young-liberal-pushes-stop-harper-coalition-conservatives-brag-on-economy/article1587660/ Tab 31
A coalition lead by Layton???
Amazing, just a little while ago I was explaining to someone that a formal coalition between the Liberals and NDP might get my attention as long as they got rid of Layton first. I wounder how many others feel that way. How many Liberals who have had to fight bitterly with Layton over the last 4 or 5 elections would be willing to support him with any real and meaningful sincerity - ask Scott Reid what he thinks. After his accusation against Martin in '04(?) I pretty much lost all respect for the guy.
This result seems to be based on people in Quebec leaving the Block and voting NDP because of Layton. It may well be because the NDP is left of centre and Layton is well identified leader - as opposed to Ignatieff. This is supported by a co-alition with Bob Rae leading the Liberals would end up in a tie.
It seems to me that people should be considering a new Party altogether - Liberal Democrat has a certain ring to it.
And, who better than our youth to do it.
After being in power for 10 years or so, it may be a Party becomes top heavy with people who have the power and influence and not only feel they still know how to do things but they want to be the one that single-handedly brings the Party back to power. Not only do they not understand on an intuitive, anything other than lip service, level changes that the nation has undergone politically, economically, socially and outlook, they are closed to anything new, since, well quite frankly they know it all.
It apparently takes around 8 years for the Party to break up this hardening and rid themselves of this and allow the up and comers who not only intuitively understand the new landscape, they are 'hungry' and willing to work and to learn, and adapt to, what it takes to not only approach the people in the fashion they understand but also to, themselves understand, on a fundamental level, and identify with their concerns and the issues of the day that the people feel are important.
The problem is that if Harper and his Con's are in power long term, there may very well be no more Canada as a nation to run. Terminal and irreversible damage will have been inflicted on the Corpus Nationalis.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)