Posted: 7/31/2010 1:24:08 PM The Globe and Mail
Tories convert Russian-bomber incident into pitch
for expensive new fighter jets, Globe and Mail, Jul. 30, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-convert-russian-bomber-incident-into-pitch-for-new-jets/article1658006/ Tab 86
“'This incident demonstrates why it is vitally important for the Canadian Armed Forces to have the best technology and equipment available,' the Conservative Party said.
. . .
Defence Minister Peter MacKay was outraged at the allegation that his government is using a crisis to further its political interests.
'I find it astounding there could be any suggestion that we would manufacture Russians approaching our airspace. That’s bordering on ludicrous,' he said. "
"Defence Minister Peter MacKay was outraged . . ."
And this from the guy who said if it isn't in Hansard, it didn't happen.
What is vitally important to Canadian national interests is some rationality to the way Canada is run and the decision making of Harper and the Con government.
It is common knowledge that everything Stephen Harper, Peter Mackay and all the Con's do and say is political, partizan hype.
Perhaps, MacKay could do a ration analysis of this incident and why spending 16 b on 65 F-35 fighter jets would change this type of behaviour by the Russians, Canada's reaction to it or the end result, one iota.
Unless, perhaps, Mackay is suggesting that we could have shot them out of the air. In fact, if the Russian are doing it to see what our capabilities are, one might suspect that they would increase their activities if we have the F-35's. And, it is not bloody likely that we would try to shoot them out of the air, now matter what vintage jest we have.
The Russians were outside Canadian airspace, apparently had no intention of violating our airspace and apparently according to them they had a right to be there and had informed the Canadians before hand.
Also, these are propeller driven planes and why would our current jets not be able to 'intercept' them, or force/shoot them down if so desired. I don't care how fast a prop plane is it simply can't compare to a jet fighter, of any post war vintage.
There is no indication that the Russian violated Canadian airspace, or Canadian sovereignty, to any extent.
So, doesn't this incident demonstrates very visibly that what we have now is sufficient.
MacKay is stretching, severely, when he tries to use this as an excuse for spending 16 b of our hard earned tax dollars on the 65 F-35's. He is trying to appeal to us on an emotional basis, as opposed to any type of rationality. Come now MacKay, you can do better, especially a lawyer, although I can't imagine someone doing Canadians much better.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
31 July, 2010
- Harper is attending Con Summer School
Posted: 7/31/2010 11:02:20 AM and 11:07:25 AM the Globe and Mail
Summer vacation: PM off the clock, Ignatieff on the bus, Globe and Mail, Jul. 30, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/summer-vacation-pm-off-the-clock-ignatieff-on-the-bus/article1658081/
I don't think there is any doubt that Stephen Harper continues to 'work'. That is not an issue. It seems to me the issue is 'work at what'.
Without the sitting of Parliament to distract him and the media being able to shine a light on his dark corners, Harper can be even more secretive about what he is doing. And, you can bet'ya, it is not how to bolster Canadian Democracy, Canadian Unity, how to cease spending tax payers hard earned money with reckless abandon, policies designed for the good of all the people of Canada and not just the small, very well defined, group of right wing extremists that make up the die-hard core of Harper and Con supporters with epi-centre in Alberta and which are the reason Harper is at the helm and we have such a great concern as to what he is up to.
Harper is part of the International (and not just the US) Con movement, epi-centre in the US (esp Southern) and especially right wing Republican's, but don't exclude the Tea Party. He takes his ideological, strategic, policy instructions from them. They also provide ideological, political analysis for Canada, as well as other areas.
You can be sure that right now, Harper is being instructed in how to further insinuate Con ideology into the very fabric of Candian society. In opening his campaign in the last election Harper proclaimed that Canadians are moving to the right (politically as opposed to morally). This is, of course, a distortion of reality (surprise, surprise). We are being dragged, by stealth and deception, farther and father to extreme right of Con'ism.
The whole thing about the Census Long Form is a prime example of how Harper and the Con's are further insinuating Con ideology into the very fabric of Candian society.
The change is small and simple to implement, it is completely administrative, with no requirement (legal anyway, although morally there is, esp. given the impact to all our lives - in other words, Harper has no moral right to make this change without allowing all Canadians to have meaningful input into the decision, even Tom Flanagah has expressed it's non-Democratic exercise of government nature) for open discussion or Parliamentary review.
But, it will have huge and far reaching ramifications as far as re-enforcing Con ideology into Canadian society (refer to my prev blogs at: cicblog.com/comments.html - 26 July, 2010, 'One Small Step for Harper, One Giant Leap for Con'ism'). This explains the otherwise very puzzling stubbornness of Harper of not backing down on this issue. It really is a 'brilliant' tactical move (something along the lines of eliminating subsidies to political parties, proroguing Parliament so many times, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera), if your Attila the Hun. I'll just bet'ya it, and the others, arose out of the US.
If you want a more in depth explanation, just ask Tom Flanagan how important appointments by the Harper administration is to establishing the Con ideology in our very social fabric.
In other words Harper is attending Con Summer School.
I wonder what will be in store for Canada, and this otherwise great nation of ours, this coming Fall.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Summer vacation: PM off the clock, Ignatieff on the bus, Globe and Mail, Jul. 30, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/summer-vacation-pm-off-the-clock-ignatieff-on-the-bus/article1658081/
I don't think there is any doubt that Stephen Harper continues to 'work'. That is not an issue. It seems to me the issue is 'work at what'.
Without the sitting of Parliament to distract him and the media being able to shine a light on his dark corners, Harper can be even more secretive about what he is doing. And, you can bet'ya, it is not how to bolster Canadian Democracy, Canadian Unity, how to cease spending tax payers hard earned money with reckless abandon, policies designed for the good of all the people of Canada and not just the small, very well defined, group of right wing extremists that make up the die-hard core of Harper and Con supporters with epi-centre in Alberta and which are the reason Harper is at the helm and we have such a great concern as to what he is up to.
Harper is part of the International (and not just the US) Con movement, epi-centre in the US (esp Southern) and especially right wing Republican's, but don't exclude the Tea Party. He takes his ideological, strategic, policy instructions from them. They also provide ideological, political analysis for Canada, as well as other areas.
You can be sure that right now, Harper is being instructed in how to further insinuate Con ideology into the very fabric of Candian society. In opening his campaign in the last election Harper proclaimed that Canadians are moving to the right (politically as opposed to morally). This is, of course, a distortion of reality (surprise, surprise). We are being dragged, by stealth and deception, farther and father to extreme right of Con'ism.
The whole thing about the Census Long Form is a prime example of how Harper and the Con's are further insinuating Con ideology into the very fabric of Candian society.
The change is small and simple to implement, it is completely administrative, with no requirement (legal anyway, although morally there is, esp. given the impact to all our lives - in other words, Harper has no moral right to make this change without allowing all Canadians to have meaningful input into the decision, even Tom Flanagah has expressed it's non-Democratic exercise of government nature) for open discussion or Parliamentary review.
But, it will have huge and far reaching ramifications as far as re-enforcing Con ideology into Canadian society (refer to my prev blogs at: cicblog.com/comments.html - 26 July, 2010, 'One Small Step for Harper, One Giant Leap for Con'ism'). This explains the otherwise very puzzling stubbornness of Harper of not backing down on this issue. It really is a 'brilliant' tactical move (something along the lines of eliminating subsidies to political parties, proroguing Parliament so many times, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera), if your Attila the Hun. I'll just bet'ya it, and the others, arose out of the US.
If you want a more in depth explanation, just ask Tom Flanagan how important appointments by the Harper administration is to establishing the Con ideology in our very social fabric.
In other words Harper is attending Con Summer School.
I wonder what will be in store for Canada, and this otherwise great nation of ours, this coming Fall.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
29 July, 2010
- Stephen Harper: It's The Ideology, Stupid! continued
continued from my post: 28 Jul.'10 "Stephen Harper: It's The Ideology, Stupid" below
. . .
Ibbitson may be right (morally, that is). After all this it may be very difficult to enforce any sanctions for any Form of census, long or short. This may carry over to all other areas as well - I can't wait to see that!
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
posted:7/29/2010 11:17:08 AM The Globe and Mail
The reviews are in – and they are not kind to Tony Clement, Jane Taber, 28 Jul.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/the-reviews-are-in-and-they-are-not-kind-to-tony-clement/article1654547/ Tab 62
Posted: 7/29/2010 11:06:02 AM The Globe and Mail
John Ibbitson, Survey says: Government still not listening on census, 27 Jul.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/survey-says-government-still-not-listening-on-census/article1653939/Tab 117
. . .
Ibbitson may be right (morally, that is). After all this it may be very difficult to enforce any sanctions for any Form of census, long or short. This may carry over to all other areas as well - I can't wait to see that!
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
posted:7/29/2010 11:17:08 AM The Globe and Mail
The reviews are in – and they are not kind to Tony Clement, Jane Taber, 28 Jul.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/the-reviews-are-in-and-they-are-not-kind-to-tony-clement/article1654547/ Tab 62
Posted: 7/29/2010 11:06:02 AM The Globe and Mail
John Ibbitson, Survey says: Government still not listening on census, 27 Jul.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/survey-says-government-still-not-listening-on-census/article1653939/Tab 117
28 July, 2010
- Stephen Harper: It's The Ideology, Stupid!
Submitted: 8:45am, PDT, CBC News
Ex-StatsCan head defends mandatory census, Clement 'manufacturing a crisis' over survey: opposition Mps, July 27, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/07/27/pol-census-clement-sheikh-hearing.html
Jail time and/or fines for not completing the Long Form is a necessary evil. Criminal sanctions including jail time and fines are the strongest method the Federal government has to ensure that a thing is done or not done.
There are many, many examples in our society that could be pointed to and the same criticisms made.
Only the Federal Government can make something a criminal offence.
There are approx 692 Federal Statutes with their corresponding sets of regulations (approx 3442). Generally each (statute and pursuant regulations, rules, etc) has provisions for criminal prosecution for failing to do something it requires be done or not doing something that would transgress the provisions of the legislation. This is besides the Canadian Criminal Code.
This makes an awful lot of opportunities to be thrown in jail. And from this 'criminal offence pool' I am very confident that there could be found many, many examples that, if brought to the attention of Canadians, would illicit the type of response that Tony Clement is giving to the Long Form. So why would Harper and the Con's be so firm on this one - it's all in the Ideology.
Next time you use a stamp to mail a letter keep in mind that:
Canada Post Corporation Act
60. Every person who contravenes any provision of this Act or the regulations . . .
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on
summary conviction.
A Canada Post employee suggest to me that if someone where to put a stamp with a picture of the Queen upside down on the envelope, they would be violating the legislation, and so committing a criminal offence (I didn't do it, of course, we were just talking)
Next time you use a penny to replace that blown fuse keep in mind you may be committing a criminal office (of course, you may have the defence of insanity available to you).
Currency Act
11. (1) No person shall, except in accordance with a licence granted by the Minister, melt down, break up or use otherwise than as currency any coin that is current and legal tender in Canada.
Offence and punishment
(2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) . . . is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to both, and, in addition to any fine or imprisonment imposed, the court may order that the articles by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed be forfeited to Her Majesty.
One solution may be keeping the fine, with the threat of jail time for failing to pay, but eliminating the criminality - à la Provincial Legislation (vis.: illegal parking is not a criminal offence, but don't pay the fine and find out what happens).
Another, is pay the people who are given the Long Forms for their time to complete them. There is a certain amount of 'nature justice' to this, considering they are the ones who are spending all their time to provide information that many, many people will make money from. Clement could use the 30 million he has ear-marked for a media campaign (although Harper and the Con's would lose the opportunity to put themselves front and centre at the tax-payer's expense as when they spent over 50 million identifying the Con party with the billions spent on the stimulus program)
Criminal sanctions is a very blunt, harsh method of co-ercing the 'masses' to obey the law. It originated in a time long past, a harsh and intolerant past where human rights was non-existent and dignity and integrity of the person simply didn't apply as a universal principle, political rule was top-down and authoritarian and not democratically based. It was a time where this (along with torture, of course) was essentially the only way to enforce the law - there was no point in simply fining someone since the vast majority had no money. With the development of a commercially based society, human right and the integrity and dignity of the person, and democracy, the 'masses' are no longer 'masses' they are members of our society. And, they have more 'disposable' money, but are just as reluctant to 'throw it away on fines'.
Revamping the whole law regime to bring us out of the dark ages and reflect these developments of humanity would be a good thing. However, it is not likely to occur with Harper and the Con's. They are, in fact, dragging us back and undoing what our forefathers with their blood sweat and tears have achieved over many years.
Stephen Harper and the Con's 'tough on crime' policies are a direct, and harmful, throwback to this harsh, authoritarian, top-down, ideologically based, anti-democratic exercise of political power.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Ex-StatsCan head defends mandatory census, Clement 'manufacturing a crisis' over survey: opposition Mps, July 27, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/07/27/pol-census-clement-sheikh-hearing.html
Jail time and/or fines for not completing the Long Form is a necessary evil. Criminal sanctions including jail time and fines are the strongest method the Federal government has to ensure that a thing is done or not done.
There are many, many examples in our society that could be pointed to and the same criticisms made.
Only the Federal Government can make something a criminal offence.
There are approx 692 Federal Statutes with their corresponding sets of regulations (approx 3442). Generally each (statute and pursuant regulations, rules, etc) has provisions for criminal prosecution for failing to do something it requires be done or not doing something that would transgress the provisions of the legislation. This is besides the Canadian Criminal Code.
This makes an awful lot of opportunities to be thrown in jail. And from this 'criminal offence pool' I am very confident that there could be found many, many examples that, if brought to the attention of Canadians, would illicit the type of response that Tony Clement is giving to the Long Form. So why would Harper and the Con's be so firm on this one - it's all in the Ideology.
Next time you use a stamp to mail a letter keep in mind that:
Canada Post Corporation Act
60. Every person who contravenes any provision of this Act or the regulations . . .
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on
summary conviction.
A Canada Post employee suggest to me that if someone where to put a stamp with a picture of the Queen upside down on the envelope, they would be violating the legislation, and so committing a criminal offence (I didn't do it, of course, we were just talking)
Next time you use a penny to replace that blown fuse keep in mind you may be committing a criminal office (of course, you may have the defence of insanity available to you).
Currency Act
11. (1) No person shall, except in accordance with a licence granted by the Minister, melt down, break up or use otherwise than as currency any coin that is current and legal tender in Canada.
Offence and punishment
(2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) . . . is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to both, and, in addition to any fine or imprisonment imposed, the court may order that the articles by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed be forfeited to Her Majesty.
One solution may be keeping the fine, with the threat of jail time for failing to pay, but eliminating the criminality - à la Provincial Legislation (vis.: illegal parking is not a criminal offence, but don't pay the fine and find out what happens).
Another, is pay the people who are given the Long Forms for their time to complete them. There is a certain amount of 'nature justice' to this, considering they are the ones who are spending all their time to provide information that many, many people will make money from. Clement could use the 30 million he has ear-marked for a media campaign (although Harper and the Con's would lose the opportunity to put themselves front and centre at the tax-payer's expense as when they spent over 50 million identifying the Con party with the billions spent on the stimulus program)
Criminal sanctions is a very blunt, harsh method of co-ercing the 'masses' to obey the law. It originated in a time long past, a harsh and intolerant past where human rights was non-existent and dignity and integrity of the person simply didn't apply as a universal principle, political rule was top-down and authoritarian and not democratically based. It was a time where this (along with torture, of course) was essentially the only way to enforce the law - there was no point in simply fining someone since the vast majority had no money. With the development of a commercially based society, human right and the integrity and dignity of the person, and democracy, the 'masses' are no longer 'masses' they are members of our society. And, they have more 'disposable' money, but are just as reluctant to 'throw it away on fines'.
Revamping the whole law regime to bring us out of the dark ages and reflect these developments of humanity would be a good thing. However, it is not likely to occur with Harper and the Con's. They are, in fact, dragging us back and undoing what our forefathers with their blood sweat and tears have achieved over many years.
Stephen Harper and the Con's 'tough on crime' policies are a direct, and harmful, throwback to this harsh, authoritarian, top-down, ideologically based, anti-democratic exercise of political power.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
27 July, 2010
- Tony, Show Us The Numbers!
7/27/2010 10:14:33 AM
Monday, July 26, 2010 6:04 PM
"MPs grill Tony Clement, top statisticians over census changes"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/mps-grill-tony-clement-top-statisticians-over-census-changes/article1652433/
So far, as I can see, the only reason Tony Clement has given is that it is the decision of the government.
That pretty much confirms that the decision is ideologically based with little consideration for the relevant facts and the good of Canada as a nation and all Canadians.
It is very clear from Clement's testimony so far that Stephen Harper and the Con's have very little, if any factual basis, to back up their statements.
One can only wonder why Clement didn't say how many people have been convicted for failing to answer the Long Form, even after being asked a number of times that exact question.
Then there is the number of people that have been given fines for not answering. Surely, these are two very relevant facts that one would think Clement would have at the tip of his tongue.
The the rational implication is that these facts do not support the Harper position on this issue and so Clement, as well as Harper and all the other Con's, you bet'ya, simply won't tell us.
The Con's place a lot of stock in polls and surveys and round table discussion groups, etc., the likelihood that they have not researched this issue is, to me, remote. Clement says that they have been tracking it, if so, where are the results of that tracking.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Monday, July 26, 2010 6:04 PM
"MPs grill Tony Clement, top statisticians over census changes"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/mps-grill-tony-clement-top-statisticians-over-census-changes/article1652433/
So far, as I can see, the only reason Tony Clement has given is that it is the decision of the government.
That pretty much confirms that the decision is ideologically based with little consideration for the relevant facts and the good of Canada as a nation and all Canadians.
It is very clear from Clement's testimony so far that Stephen Harper and the Con's have very little, if any factual basis, to back up their statements.
One can only wonder why Clement didn't say how many people have been convicted for failing to answer the Long Form, even after being asked a number of times that exact question.
Then there is the number of people that have been given fines for not answering. Surely, these are two very relevant facts that one would think Clement would have at the tip of his tongue.
The the rational implication is that these facts do not support the Harper position on this issue and so Clement, as well as Harper and all the other Con's, you bet'ya, simply won't tell us.
The Con's place a lot of stock in polls and surveys and round table discussion groups, etc., the likelihood that they have not researched this issue is, to me, remote. Clement says that they have been tracking it, if so, where are the results of that tracking.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
26 July, 2010
- One Small Step for Harper, One Giant Leap for Con'ism
Submitted: 7/26/2010 11:44:53 AM The Globe and Mail
and: 7/26/2010 1:05:16 PM
Harper’s census push months in the making, Michael Valpy, Jul. 26, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harpers-census-push-months-in-the-making/article1651526/ Tab 63 and Tab 66
"Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said on the weekend that he thinks census data can be collected voluntarily without being compromised."
Perhaps Mr. Flaherty could explain just exactly what he is basing that statement on. Presumably, he is talking in the context of mathematical and science theory as opposed to simply a expression of an irrational, emotionally based right wing philosophy. Other than being elected, which, obviously, has absolutely no educational or professional prerequisites, what kind of rational basis does Jim Flaherty have to make this statement.
If Flaherty has no rational basis, then he ought not be making such statements for two reasons:
- it sets mathematics back to the dark ages, before the Age of Reason, where science and mathematics, as presented to the common people, were bases on religion and irrational fears; and,
- Flaherty is making such statements on behalf of the Canadian government and so as our representative. I think we have a right to demand that the people running our country be more responsible. If he does then why hide it.
And this is the whole crux of the problem. We have the Harper government simply making bald statements that this is the 'right' thing to do.
If we understand right as in 'morally' right, as in what is best for our great nation and all those in it, then this move makes no sense.
If you are talking about what promotes Harper extreme right wing agenda and his dream of tearing Canada as a united whole asunder, then it makes great sense and in fact is in line with the persona of political acumen (although I think that if the truth be know the real acumen flows from a source much to the South of us).
However, we, modern, scientifically advanced and dependent, developed, complex, multi-faceted, tolerant, economy based and democratic societies are in a circumstance that has never in the history of mankind been seen, or even close.
Our whole way of life depends on rational thought. Our science is based on rational thought. Our economics is based on rational thought. Our educational system is based on rational thought.
However, politics is still based on approaching the voter on an emotional level and irrational level - employing the socially dead-end evolutionarily principles of: our camp against your camp; we're right - you're wrong; we're good - you're bad; we're big - you're small, all relying on the basic premise: we're strong - you're week. (cicblog.com/comments.html; 02 January, 2010, 'Our Society is based on Rationality, It's Time We Insisted that Our Politics is as Well')
Reliable, factually based information is vital to our way of life as it is right now. Stephen Harper and the Con's want to change our way of life, back to the 'good ol' days' of a new dark age. This is a great step. That's the Harper reality. That's the Harper logic. That's the hypocrisy - Harper is very logical, rational, including use of statistics - polls, in approaching Canadians on an emotional, irrational bases.
This is not a struggle for the minds of the people between the the 'common folk' and the 'intellectually elite', although Harper and the Con's have been very carefully trying to present it as such.
It is struggle between a philosophy that developed in the context of an antiquated society, one that we have outgrown in a process that started with the Age of Reason. Our society has benefited from rationalism to a degree that was unimaginable even 100 years ago.
This Conservative philosophy may have been successful in that old context (something like observing that the Attila the Hun philosophy was successful, or the philosophy of the ancient Romans, for which we as a society have spent 2000 years throwing off, although apparently not successful according to Tom Flanagan).
However, it is no longer, and has not been for some time, well suited to our, modern, society.
It is not a democratic society in that decision making was based on a top-down power structure (as with a regency, dictatorship, totalitarian rule, military rule).
It is not a universally applicable since it was based upon a homogenous society where everyone (except for, perhaps, a few enlightened individuals and groups) had essentially same personal belief set and philosophical outlook.
It was belief oriented, if for no other reason than, other than auguring or reading entrails, people had no other, rational, way of analysis - putting in context what they observed in order to reasonable and with reliability, predict the future (i.e. what we call science).
The 'authorities' controlled the information that the people received, they controlled the message, they withheld the truth and the means for people to learn the truth, they 'knew' what was right for the people and it had very little to do with the actual realities but everything to do with control. They stomped on anyone that dared to stand up to them, one need only think of the Inquisition, witch hunts and, of course, Galileo.
Sound familiar.
This is exactly what we are looking at with Harper and his Con's (except a bit more subtle than the Inquisition and with hunts, so far anyway, but one need only refer to McCarthyism for a recent example of the extremes it can go to even in our modern society - "McCarthyism is the political action of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence." wikipedia).
It is manifest in Harper's plan to undermine the census. If we do not have reliable data to refer to, that just leaves the 'authorities' (back then it was the king, or queen, the elite nobility, the Church, the military leaders, etc.). Truth and knowledge are the food of Democracy and requires it to survive, let alone thrive.
There are many differences that go to the heart of why this conservative philosophy is antiquated and no applicable to the current context. It may have been useful in our past and we can certainly benefit from a rational analysis of it, but let us, first tip our hats, then relegate it to our history books and keep it there.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
and: 7/26/2010 1:05:16 PM
Harper’s census push months in the making, Michael Valpy, Jul. 26, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harpers-census-push-months-in-the-making/article1651526/ Tab 63 and Tab 66
"Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said on the weekend that he thinks census data can be collected voluntarily without being compromised."
Perhaps Mr. Flaherty could explain just exactly what he is basing that statement on. Presumably, he is talking in the context of mathematical and science theory as opposed to simply a expression of an irrational, emotionally based right wing philosophy. Other than being elected, which, obviously, has absolutely no educational or professional prerequisites, what kind of rational basis does Jim Flaherty have to make this statement.
If Flaherty has no rational basis, then he ought not be making such statements for two reasons:
- it sets mathematics back to the dark ages, before the Age of Reason, where science and mathematics, as presented to the common people, were bases on religion and irrational fears; and,
- Flaherty is making such statements on behalf of the Canadian government and so as our representative. I think we have a right to demand that the people running our country be more responsible. If he does then why hide it.
And this is the whole crux of the problem. We have the Harper government simply making bald statements that this is the 'right' thing to do.
If we understand right as in 'morally' right, as in what is best for our great nation and all those in it, then this move makes no sense.
If you are talking about what promotes Harper extreme right wing agenda and his dream of tearing Canada as a united whole asunder, then it makes great sense and in fact is in line with the persona of political acumen (although I think that if the truth be know the real acumen flows from a source much to the South of us).
However, we, modern, scientifically advanced and dependent, developed, complex, multi-faceted, tolerant, economy based and democratic societies are in a circumstance that has never in the history of mankind been seen, or even close.
Our whole way of life depends on rational thought. Our science is based on rational thought. Our economics is based on rational thought. Our educational system is based on rational thought.
However, politics is still based on approaching the voter on an emotional level and irrational level - employing the socially dead-end evolutionarily principles of: our camp against your camp; we're right - you're wrong; we're good - you're bad; we're big - you're small, all relying on the basic premise: we're strong - you're week. (cicblog.com/comments.html; 02 January, 2010, 'Our Society is based on Rationality, It's Time We Insisted that Our Politics is as Well')
Reliable, factually based information is vital to our way of life as it is right now. Stephen Harper and the Con's want to change our way of life, back to the 'good ol' days' of a new dark age. This is a great step. That's the Harper reality. That's the Harper logic. That's the hypocrisy - Harper is very logical, rational, including use of statistics - polls, in approaching Canadians on an emotional, irrational bases.
This is not a struggle for the minds of the people between the the 'common folk' and the 'intellectually elite', although Harper and the Con's have been very carefully trying to present it as such.
It is struggle between a philosophy that developed in the context of an antiquated society, one that we have outgrown in a process that started with the Age of Reason. Our society has benefited from rationalism to a degree that was unimaginable even 100 years ago.
This Conservative philosophy may have been successful in that old context (something like observing that the Attila the Hun philosophy was successful, or the philosophy of the ancient Romans, for which we as a society have spent 2000 years throwing off, although apparently not successful according to Tom Flanagan).
However, it is no longer, and has not been for some time, well suited to our, modern, society.
It is not a democratic society in that decision making was based on a top-down power structure (as with a regency, dictatorship, totalitarian rule, military rule).
It is not a universally applicable since it was based upon a homogenous society where everyone (except for, perhaps, a few enlightened individuals and groups) had essentially same personal belief set and philosophical outlook.
It was belief oriented, if for no other reason than, other than auguring or reading entrails, people had no other, rational, way of analysis - putting in context what they observed in order to reasonable and with reliability, predict the future (i.e. what we call science).
The 'authorities' controlled the information that the people received, they controlled the message, they withheld the truth and the means for people to learn the truth, they 'knew' what was right for the people and it had very little to do with the actual realities but everything to do with control. They stomped on anyone that dared to stand up to them, one need only think of the Inquisition, witch hunts and, of course, Galileo.
Sound familiar.
This is exactly what we are looking at with Harper and his Con's (except a bit more subtle than the Inquisition and with hunts, so far anyway, but one need only refer to McCarthyism for a recent example of the extremes it can go to even in our modern society - "McCarthyism is the political action of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence." wikipedia).
It is manifest in Harper's plan to undermine the census. If we do not have reliable data to refer to, that just leaves the 'authorities' (back then it was the king, or queen, the elite nobility, the Church, the military leaders, etc.). Truth and knowledge are the food of Democracy and requires it to survive, let alone thrive.
There are many differences that go to the heart of why this conservative philosophy is antiquated and no applicable to the current context. It may have been useful in our past and we can certainly benefit from a rational analysis of it, but let us, first tip our hats, then relegate it to our history books and keep it there.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
25 July, 2010
Mercy, Keep Shining That Light Brother on Stephen Harper and the Cons' Ideology
Posted: 9:45am, PDT, 25 Jul.'10 The Mark
When Smart Parties Make Stupid Decisions, Paul Saurette, Associate Professor of Political Studies, University of Ottawa, Jul 23 2010
http://www.themarknews.com/articles/1907-when-smart-parties-make-stupid-decisions?page=1
Paul Saurette demonstrates a good handle on the current political realities in Canada, the US, et al. regarding the Con movement:
This includes his assessment of Tom Flanagan, in generalities but not updated - he would have to reconcile the statement by Flanagan the other day:
"I think it was an exercise in bad government to suddenly spring this on the public without any previous discussion, no consultation at all . . . You don't deal with the public that way in a democracy." (Montreal Gazette)."
I'd love to hear more.
On Jul.18 I posted to my blog: cicblog.com/comments.html
(excerpt)
"Clement says the government chose what it felt was the best course, but he would not reveal what the other two options were." (CBCNews, 16 Jul)
The key to understanding all this is the statement by
Tony Clement:
" the government chose what it felt was the best course"
How about an explanation as to why Harper, Clement and all the other Con's feel it is the best. It seems that this is the same patronizing obfuscation we are getting with the $16 billion Harper and the Con's are spending on the 'next generation' fighter-jets.
You know that there was no objective rationally approach weighing of the pro's and con's with respect to what is in the best interest of all Canadians and Harper and the Con's are looking to benefit a small segment of the population. My guess is that it is the 33% die-hards, with epicentre in Alberta.
This is bolstered by the fact that, as seems to be the general consensus with those that ought to know, it can only undermine the reliability and hence the usefulness of the information. This is not just for the private sector, but for the government as well. It undermines the federal government's ability to implement and oversee public policies that have applicability throughout all of Canada as a whole and for all Canadians. These are precisely the polices that unite all Canadians in a common cause and give us our identity as a nation.
Of course one must look at it from Harper's point of view as well - if you have dedicated the whole of your public life to dismantling Canada as a unified, cohesive nation and transferring everything to the Provinces, then why do you need a reliable, general body of data on Canadians as a nation.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
also posted to:
Friday, July 23, 2010, Why we're census-obsessed, Gloria Galloway
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/why-were-census-obsessed/article1649356/
When Smart Parties Make Stupid Decisions, Paul Saurette, Associate Professor of Political Studies, University of Ottawa, Jul 23 2010
http://www.themarknews.com/articles/1907-when-smart-parties-make-stupid-decisions?page=1
Paul Saurette demonstrates a good handle on the current political realities in Canada, the US, et al. regarding the Con movement:
This includes his assessment of Tom Flanagan, in generalities but not updated - he would have to reconcile the statement by Flanagan the other day:
"I think it was an exercise in bad government to suddenly spring this on the public without any previous discussion, no consultation at all . . . You don't deal with the public that way in a democracy." (Montreal Gazette)."
I'd love to hear more.
On Jul.18 I posted to my blog: cicblog.com/comments.html
(excerpt)
"Clement says the government chose what it felt was the best course, but he would not reveal what the other two options were." (CBCNews, 16 Jul)
The key to understanding all this is the statement by
Tony Clement:
" the government chose what it felt was the best course"
How about an explanation as to why Harper, Clement and all the other Con's feel it is the best. It seems that this is the same patronizing obfuscation we are getting with the $16 billion Harper and the Con's are spending on the 'next generation' fighter-jets.
You know that there was no objective rationally approach weighing of the pro's and con's with respect to what is in the best interest of all Canadians and Harper and the Con's are looking to benefit a small segment of the population. My guess is that it is the 33% die-hards, with epicentre in Alberta.
This is bolstered by the fact that, as seems to be the general consensus with those that ought to know, it can only undermine the reliability and hence the usefulness of the information. This is not just for the private sector, but for the government as well. It undermines the federal government's ability to implement and oversee public policies that have applicability throughout all of Canada as a whole and for all Canadians. These are precisely the polices that unite all Canadians in a common cause and give us our identity as a nation.
Of course one must look at it from Harper's point of view as well - if you have dedicated the whole of your public life to dismantling Canada as a unified, cohesive nation and transferring everything to the Provinces, then why do you need a reliable, general body of data on Canadians as a nation.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
also posted to:
Friday, July 23, 2010, Why we're census-obsessed, Gloria Galloway
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/why-were-census-obsessed/article1649356/
24 July, 2010
- Time to Give Harper and the Con's a Lesson in Democracy
7/24/2010 11:19:46 AM
Why the census matters just about everywhere, Jul. 24, 2010, Saturday's Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/why-the-census-matters-just-about-everywhere/article1650524/
This article raises a good point.
Small start-up companies rely on Statscan which in turn uses the census data to make decisions on investing money. It is trite to state that for entrepreneurs looking to start a business, location can be very important factor in whether it succeeds or fails and depending on the business other information that comes from Statscan.
This must be taken in the context of just how important this type of activity in the private is to Canada's economy, especially in a economic downturn.
Stephen Harper and the Con's are being very hypocritical when they do this, and without prior consultation, while at the same time say they want to create an environment to encourage business, by say lowering business taxes in the extreme. Clearly their claim to creating a better business environment is just an excuse to 'sell' their extreme right wing agenda.
It seems that entrepreneurs and small businesses may still be able to get this information from Statscan to base their decisions it just wouldn't be as reliable. What this can only translate into is increased start-up failures, reduced profits and reduced ability to compete to a real and significant extent.
Harper does everything for partizan purpose and the general good of all Canadians be damned. This has all the hallmarks of a purely political move, exactly what the real reason and who it will benefit we can only wait and see. One thing we can be sure of is, Harper is not likely to tell us.
Tom Flanagan suggest that "I think it was an exercise in bad government to suddenly spring this on the public without any previous discussion, no consultation at all . . . You don't deal with the public that way in a democracy." (Montreal Gazette)."
This is just one of many things Harper and the Con's have done that you don't do in a Democracy.
Isn't it time Canadians gave Harper a lesson in democracy. Oh, and did I mention, Clement, do the right thing (morally, that is), resign.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Why the census matters just about everywhere, Jul. 24, 2010, Saturday's Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/why-the-census-matters-just-about-everywhere/article1650524/
This article raises a good point.
Small start-up companies rely on Statscan which in turn uses the census data to make decisions on investing money. It is trite to state that for entrepreneurs looking to start a business, location can be very important factor in whether it succeeds or fails and depending on the business other information that comes from Statscan.
This must be taken in the context of just how important this type of activity in the private is to Canada's economy, especially in a economic downturn.
Stephen Harper and the Con's are being very hypocritical when they do this, and without prior consultation, while at the same time say they want to create an environment to encourage business, by say lowering business taxes in the extreme. Clearly their claim to creating a better business environment is just an excuse to 'sell' their extreme right wing agenda.
It seems that entrepreneurs and small businesses may still be able to get this information from Statscan to base their decisions it just wouldn't be as reliable. What this can only translate into is increased start-up failures, reduced profits and reduced ability to compete to a real and significant extent.
Harper does everything for partizan purpose and the general good of all Canadians be damned. This has all the hallmarks of a purely political move, exactly what the real reason and who it will benefit we can only wait and see. One thing we can be sure of is, Harper is not likely to tell us.
Tom Flanagan suggest that "I think it was an exercise in bad government to suddenly spring this on the public without any previous discussion, no consultation at all . . . You don't deal with the public that way in a democracy." (Montreal Gazette)."
This is just one of many things Harper and the Con's have done that you don't do in a Democracy.
Isn't it time Canadians gave Harper a lesson in democracy. Oh, and did I mention, Clement, do the right thing (morally, that is), resign.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
22 July, 2010
- Harper, "Veni Vidi Vidiate"
7/22/2010 10:59:39 AM The Globe and Mail
John Ibbitson, Long or short, Tories must retreat on the census, Jul. 22, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/long-or-short-tories-must-retreat-on-the-census/article1648011/ Tab 54
It is not just the confidence in the information that Statscan releases that is at stake here. It is the confidence in Statcan as a trustworthy agency. Harper, Clement and the Cons' are tainting it with their political hyper-partisanship.
Statscan has also enjoyed an impeccable reputation up until now.
We must not let Stephen Harper destroy it with their political interference and purely partizan approach to everything.
When we look at the control of the message that the Harper government enforces on anyone under its control, directly or even indirectly, as demonstrated by the MEPS, and when we consider just how important the Harper government places on being able to say that their plan is working, can we really take at face value what comes out of Statscan these days regarding how great the economy is, or any other agency under Harper's control, for that matter.
If Munir Sheikh's resignation says we can, then the question is: for how long.
It is just a matter of time and a few well chosen political appointments and job placements. The unfortunate thing is that Mr. Sheikh's resignation may simply accelerate the process, since now the top job is open. And you can be sure, even if Harper convoked a secret panel to choose, that it will be a hyper-partizan appointment.
Statscan is one of the unifying forces in Canada, especially given our regional and cultural diversity and economic extremes. It helps to keep our politicians honest by keeping us anchored to truth and reality. Now we can start to see why Harper wants to undermine its reliability.
It is Tony Clement that should resign and every person in Canada should stand up, be counted, and demand this. Better yet for Canada, give Harper and all the Con's the boot.
Stelmach seems to be the only Premier that supports the Con change in the census - ask Statscan what the chances are of that being a co-incidence.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
John Ibbitson, Long or short, Tories must retreat on the census, Jul. 22, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/long-or-short-tories-must-retreat-on-the-census/article1648011/ Tab 54
It is not just the confidence in the information that Statscan releases that is at stake here. It is the confidence in Statcan as a trustworthy agency. Harper, Clement and the Cons' are tainting it with their political hyper-partisanship.
Statscan has also enjoyed an impeccable reputation up until now.
We must not let Stephen Harper destroy it with their political interference and purely partizan approach to everything.
When we look at the control of the message that the Harper government enforces on anyone under its control, directly or even indirectly, as demonstrated by the MEPS, and when we consider just how important the Harper government places on being able to say that their plan is working, can we really take at face value what comes out of Statscan these days regarding how great the economy is, or any other agency under Harper's control, for that matter.
If Munir Sheikh's resignation says we can, then the question is: for how long.
It is just a matter of time and a few well chosen political appointments and job placements. The unfortunate thing is that Mr. Sheikh's resignation may simply accelerate the process, since now the top job is open. And you can be sure, even if Harper convoked a secret panel to choose, that it will be a hyper-partizan appointment.
Statscan is one of the unifying forces in Canada, especially given our regional and cultural diversity and economic extremes. It helps to keep our politicians honest by keeping us anchored to truth and reality. Now we can start to see why Harper wants to undermine its reliability.
It is Tony Clement that should resign and every person in Canada should stand up, be counted, and demand this. Better yet for Canada, give Harper and all the Con's the boot.
Stelmach seems to be the only Premier that supports the Con change in the census - ask Statscan what the chances are of that being a co-incidence.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Munir Sheikh - All the Right (Morally) Stuff.
7/22/2010 10:31:40 AM
Statistics Canada chief falls on sword over census, Steven Chase and Tavia Grant, Jul. 21, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/statistics-canada-chief-falls-on-sword-over-census/article1647348/Tab 245
Munir Sheikh resigning goes to keeping Statscan's integrity intact and he should be applauded for that.
It is not just the confidence in the information that Statscan releases that is at stake here. It is the confidence in Statcan as a trustworthy agency. Harper, Clement and the Cons' are tainting it with their political hyper-partisanship.
Mr. Sheikh's resignation at least shows Canadians that Statscan may not be supporting this change and trying to resist the political interference. Or, another way of looking at it is that Harper and the Con's have not yet corrupted Statscan. And, that is a very important point.
However, it is just a matter of time and a few well chosen political appointments and job placements. The unfortunate thing is that Mr. Sheikh's resignation may simply accelerate the process, since now the top job is open. And you can be sure, even if Harper convoked a secret panel to choose, that it will be a hyper-partizan appointment.
It is Tony Clement that should resign and every person in Canada (except the 33% core of die-hard supporters of Harper and the Con's with epi-centre in Alberta that will support Harper no matter what) that shoudl stand up, be counted and demand Clement's resignation. Better yet for Canada as a nation, give Harper and the Con's the boot.
Statscan performs a very important function, and it is one of the unifying forces in Canada, especially given our regional and cultural diversity and economic extremes. It helps to keep our politicians honest by keeping us anchored to truth and reality. Now we can start to see why Harper wants to undermine its reliability.
Statscan has also enjoyed an impeccable reputation up until now.
We must not let Harper destroy it with their political interference and purely partizan approach to everything.
You can be assured that Harper is doing this (changing the census) for the benefit of a small group of people - his core of die-hard supporters, with epi-centre Alberta (Stelmach seems to be the only Premier that supports it - ask Statscan what the chances are of that being a co-incidence), Canada be damned.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Statistics Canada chief falls on sword over census, Steven Chase and Tavia Grant, Jul. 21, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/statistics-canada-chief-falls-on-sword-over-census/article1647348/Tab 245
Munir Sheikh resigning goes to keeping Statscan's integrity intact and he should be applauded for that.
It is not just the confidence in the information that Statscan releases that is at stake here. It is the confidence in Statcan as a trustworthy agency. Harper, Clement and the Cons' are tainting it with their political hyper-partisanship.
Mr. Sheikh's resignation at least shows Canadians that Statscan may not be supporting this change and trying to resist the political interference. Or, another way of looking at it is that Harper and the Con's have not yet corrupted Statscan. And, that is a very important point.
However, it is just a matter of time and a few well chosen political appointments and job placements. The unfortunate thing is that Mr. Sheikh's resignation may simply accelerate the process, since now the top job is open. And you can be sure, even if Harper convoked a secret panel to choose, that it will be a hyper-partizan appointment.
It is Tony Clement that should resign and every person in Canada (except the 33% core of die-hard supporters of Harper and the Con's with epi-centre in Alberta that will support Harper no matter what) that shoudl stand up, be counted and demand Clement's resignation. Better yet for Canada as a nation, give Harper and the Con's the boot.
Statscan performs a very important function, and it is one of the unifying forces in Canada, especially given our regional and cultural diversity and economic extremes. It helps to keep our politicians honest by keeping us anchored to truth and reality. Now we can start to see why Harper wants to undermine its reliability.
Statscan has also enjoyed an impeccable reputation up until now.
We must not let Harper destroy it with their political interference and purely partizan approach to everything.
You can be assured that Harper is doing this (changing the census) for the benefit of a small group of people - his core of die-hard supporters, with epi-centre Alberta (Stelmach seems to be the only Premier that supports it - ask Statscan what the chances are of that being a co-incidence), Canada be damned.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
21 July, 2010
- Analyze This: Harper's Political Interference with the Census
Posted: 7/21/2010 11:30:31 AM
Provinces rally against Ottawa as anger over census mounts, Steven Chase, Karen Howlett and Tavia Grant, , Jul. 21, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/provinces-rally-against-ottawa-as-anger-over-census-mounts/article1646827/
What Tony Clement actually said, according to CBC News, 18 Jul.'10, was:
"But he says that when the government approached Statistics Canada about changing the census, the agency gave three options to balance the concerns of those against the long-form census and those who rely on the data obtained.
"Clement says the government chose what it felt was the best course, but he would not reveal what the other two options were."
(CBC 18 Jul.'10)
That is much different then what he is suggesting now - that the changes are acceptable since this was a recommendation from Statscan
"But Mr. Clement said he believes that the head of Statscan finds the shift acceptable because it was the senior bureaucrat who came up with options on how to make the voluntary long form system work accurately.
'I am entitled to believe that when a deputy minister – in this case the chief statistician – gives me a set of options, he is comfortable with those options,' the minister said. "
However:
"The Industry Minister has been challenged by unnamed employees at Statscan who say he is misrepresenting facts by implying that the agency and chief statistician Munir Sheikh are satisfied with how Canada is switching to a voluntary long form."
Also, since Statscan is not arms length from the Government then, unfortunately, any statement made by a Statscan representative must be viewed in this light and we keep in mind the 'MEPS'.
Apparently, "[Munir] Sheikh has not commented publicly on the new questionnaire, and insists on taking all questions in e-mail form via the agency's communications office.
. . .
'I can't for a moment believe that Statistics Canada would have put its stamp of approval on the quality that this voluntary survey will result in,' Fellegi [the previuous head statistician for Stascan] said in an interview Friday."(see: Canadaeast.com)
This is exactly how the Harper government controls the messages from various agencies and departments, organizations under its control and what the MEPS is all about.
Something that is just as important, if not more, is that the emphasis is being changed to economic analysis and research.
Keep in mind "the switch in leadership to Mr. Sheikh, an economist, from former head statistician Ivan Fellegi".
Is it just a coincidence that Statscan, under the direct control of Stephen Harper and the Con's, is releasing results that tend to indicate that the economy is doing great.
With all due respect to those at Statscan, when we look at the control of the message that the Harper government enforces on anyone under its control, directly or even indirectly, as demonstrated by the MEPS, and when we consider just how important the Harper government places on being able to say that their plan is working, can we really take at face value what comes out of Statscan these days regarding how great the economy is, or any other agency under Harper's control, for that matter.
Statscan performs a very important function, and it is one of the unifying forces in Canada, especially given our regional and cultural diversity and economic extremes. It helps to keep our politicians honest by keeping us anchored to truth and reality. Now we can start to see why Harper wants to undermine its reliability.
Statscan has also enjoyed an impeccable reputation up until now.
We must not let Harper destroy it with their political interference and purely partizan approach to everything.
You can be assured that Harper is doing this (changing the census) for the benefit of a small group of people - his core of die-hard supporters, with epi-centre Alberta (Stelmach seems to be the only Premier that supports it - ask Statscan what the chances are of that being a co-incidence), Canada be damned.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Provinces rally against Ottawa as anger over census mounts, Steven Chase, Karen Howlett and Tavia Grant, , Jul. 21, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/provinces-rally-against-ottawa-as-anger-over-census-mounts/article1646827/
What Tony Clement actually said, according to CBC News, 18 Jul.'10, was:
"But he says that when the government approached Statistics Canada about changing the census, the agency gave three options to balance the concerns of those against the long-form census and those who rely on the data obtained.
"Clement says the government chose what it felt was the best course, but he would not reveal what the other two options were."
(CBC 18 Jul.'10)
That is much different then what he is suggesting now - that the changes are acceptable since this was a recommendation from Statscan
"But Mr. Clement said he believes that the head of Statscan finds the shift acceptable because it was the senior bureaucrat who came up with options on how to make the voluntary long form system work accurately.
'I am entitled to believe that when a deputy minister – in this case the chief statistician – gives me a set of options, he is comfortable with those options,' the minister said. "
However:
"The Industry Minister has been challenged by unnamed employees at Statscan who say he is misrepresenting facts by implying that the agency and chief statistician Munir Sheikh are satisfied with how Canada is switching to a voluntary long form."
Also, since Statscan is not arms length from the Government then, unfortunately, any statement made by a Statscan representative must be viewed in this light and we keep in mind the 'MEPS'.
Apparently, "[Munir] Sheikh has not commented publicly on the new questionnaire, and insists on taking all questions in e-mail form via the agency's communications office.
. . .
'I can't for a moment believe that Statistics Canada would have put its stamp of approval on the quality that this voluntary survey will result in,' Fellegi [the previuous head statistician for Stascan] said in an interview Friday."(see: Canadaeast.com)
This is exactly how the Harper government controls the messages from various agencies and departments, organizations under its control and what the MEPS is all about.
Something that is just as important, if not more, is that the emphasis is being changed to economic analysis and research.
Keep in mind "the switch in leadership to Mr. Sheikh, an economist, from former head statistician Ivan Fellegi".
Is it just a coincidence that Statscan, under the direct control of Stephen Harper and the Con's, is releasing results that tend to indicate that the economy is doing great.
With all due respect to those at Statscan, when we look at the control of the message that the Harper government enforces on anyone under its control, directly or even indirectly, as demonstrated by the MEPS, and when we consider just how important the Harper government places on being able to say that their plan is working, can we really take at face value what comes out of Statscan these days regarding how great the economy is, or any other agency under Harper's control, for that matter.
Statscan performs a very important function, and it is one of the unifying forces in Canada, especially given our regional and cultural diversity and economic extremes. It helps to keep our politicians honest by keeping us anchored to truth and reality. Now we can start to see why Harper wants to undermine its reliability.
Statscan has also enjoyed an impeccable reputation up until now.
We must not let Harper destroy it with their political interference and purely partizan approach to everything.
You can be assured that Harper is doing this (changing the census) for the benefit of a small group of people - his core of die-hard supporters, with epi-centre Alberta (Stelmach seems to be the only Premier that supports it - ask Statscan what the chances are of that being a co-incidence), Canada be damned.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
18 July, 2010
- Harper and the Con's are Master 'Skewers' and are 'Skewing' this great nation of ours at every turn.
Posted: 7/18/2010 11:30:05 AM The Globe and Mail
Tabatha Southey, Long-form census? Nah, we'll ask Paul the octopus, 16 Jul.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/long-form-census-nah-well-ask-paul-the-octopus/article1643027/ Tab 16
see entry below - 'The Tearing Down of a Nation through a Thousand Cuts' by Stephen Harper'
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Tabatha Southey, Long-form census? Nah, we'll ask Paul the octopus, 16 Jul.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/long-form-census-nah-well-ask-paul-the-octopus/article1643027/ Tab 16
see entry below - 'The Tearing Down of a Nation through a Thousand Cuts' by Stephen Harper'
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- 'The Tearing Down of a Nation through a Thousand Cuts' by Stephen Harper
Submitted: 7:20am, PDT, 18 Jul.'10
Critics won't change census decision: Clement, CBC News, July 17, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/07/16/clement-house-census.html
"[Clement] said. 'We've heard from Canadians from all walks of life who are quite relieved that we're taking this position as well.'"
"Clement concedes that he did not consult with the groups and organizations that rely on census data. But he says that when the government approached Statistics Canada about changing the census, the agency gave three options to balance the concerns of those against the long-form census and those who rely on the data obtained.
"Clement says the government chose what it felt was the best course, but he would not reveal what the other two options were."
The key to understanding all this is the statement by
Tony Clement:
" the government chose what it felt was the best course"
How about an explanation as to why Harper, Clement and all the other Con's feel it is the best. It seems that this is the same patronizing obfuscation we are getting with the $16 billion Harper and the Con's are spending on the 'next generation' fighter-jets.
When you have the Minister involved making statements like:
" We've heard from Canadians from all walks of life";
"statisticians, researchers, academics, municipalities, religious groups and others have decried the move, arguing it will result in skewed and unreliable data";
"Clement concedes that he did not consult with the groups and organizations that rely on census data"; and,
"he [Clement] would not reveal what the other two options were"
You know that there was no objective rationally approach weighing of the pro's and con's with respect to what is in the best interest of all Canadians and Harper and the Con's are looking to benefit a small segment of the population. My guess is that it is the 33% die-hards, with epicentre in Alberta.
This is bolstered by the fact that, as seems to be the general consensus with those that ought to know, it can only undermine the reliability and hence the usefulness of the information. This is not just for the private sector, but for the government as well. It undermines the federal government's ability to implement and oversee public policies that have applicability throughout all of Canada as a whole and for all Canadians. These are precisely the polices that unite all Canadians in a common cause and give us our identity as a nation.
Of course one must look at it from Harper's point of view as well - if you have dedicated the whole of your public life to dismantling Canada as a unified, cohesive nation and transferring everything to the Provinces, then why do you need a reliable, general body of data on Canadians as a nation.
As has pointed out, instead of penalties for not filling it out, pay them some money for filling it out. That does make some sense, since, after all, it is their time and the info is being used for commercial purposes, or, perhaps, some kind of tax credits, e.g. put a value on it and treat it like a charitable donation, political contribution or otherwise.
I know, how about HST exemption for one year.
PS: ask Clement the real reason the G20 was transferred to Toronto
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
see also:
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/07/16/ns-census-economist.html
Census changes bad for public: economist
Last Updated: Friday, July 16, 2010 | 10:11 AM ET Comments256Recommend141.
CBC News
Critics won't change census decision: Clement, CBC News, July 17, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/07/16/clement-house-census.html
"[Clement] said. 'We've heard from Canadians from all walks of life who are quite relieved that we're taking this position as well.'"
"Clement concedes that he did not consult with the groups and organizations that rely on census data. But he says that when the government approached Statistics Canada about changing the census, the agency gave three options to balance the concerns of those against the long-form census and those who rely on the data obtained.
"Clement says the government chose what it felt was the best course, but he would not reveal what the other two options were."
The key to understanding all this is the statement by
Tony Clement:
" the government chose what it felt was the best course"
How about an explanation as to why Harper, Clement and all the other Con's feel it is the best. It seems that this is the same patronizing obfuscation we are getting with the $16 billion Harper and the Con's are spending on the 'next generation' fighter-jets.
When you have the Minister involved making statements like:
" We've heard from Canadians from all walks of life";
"statisticians, researchers, academics, municipalities, religious groups and others have decried the move, arguing it will result in skewed and unreliable data";
"Clement concedes that he did not consult with the groups and organizations that rely on census data"; and,
"he [Clement] would not reveal what the other two options were"
You know that there was no objective rationally approach weighing of the pro's and con's with respect to what is in the best interest of all Canadians and Harper and the Con's are looking to benefit a small segment of the population. My guess is that it is the 33% die-hards, with epicentre in Alberta.
This is bolstered by the fact that, as seems to be the general consensus with those that ought to know, it can only undermine the reliability and hence the usefulness of the information. This is not just for the private sector, but for the government as well. It undermines the federal government's ability to implement and oversee public policies that have applicability throughout all of Canada as a whole and for all Canadians. These are precisely the polices that unite all Canadians in a common cause and give us our identity as a nation.
Of course one must look at it from Harper's point of view as well - if you have dedicated the whole of your public life to dismantling Canada as a unified, cohesive nation and transferring everything to the Provinces, then why do you need a reliable, general body of data on Canadians as a nation.
As has pointed out, instead of penalties for not filling it out, pay them some money for filling it out. That does make some sense, since, after all, it is their time and the info is being used for commercial purposes, or, perhaps, some kind of tax credits, e.g. put a value on it and treat it like a charitable donation, political contribution or otherwise.
I know, how about HST exemption for one year.
PS: ask Clement the real reason the G20 was transferred to Toronto
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
see also:
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/07/16/ns-census-economist.html
Census changes bad for public: economist
Last Updated: Friday, July 16, 2010 | 10:11 AM ET Comments256Recommend141.
CBC News
17 July, 2010
- Con'd Again By Harper
submitted: 8:42am, PDT, 17 Jul.'10 The Toronto Star
Travers: Travers: The buck starts at Stephen Harper, 17 Jul.'10, Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/836823--travers-the-buck-starts-at-stephen-harper#article
"'it appears the Conservative are trying to put one over on the public' said Alan S. Williams, a retired bureaucrat who served as assistant deputy minister at both national defence and public works.(Toronto Star, 16 Jul.'10)
Yeh, well we let'em.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog
Travers: Travers: The buck starts at Stephen Harper, 17 Jul.'10, Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/836823--travers-the-buck-starts-at-stephen-harper#article
"'it appears the Conservative are trying to put one over on the public' said Alan S. Williams, a retired bureaucrat who served as assistant deputy minister at both national defence and public works.(Toronto Star, 16 Jul.'10)
Yeh, well we let'em.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog
- News Flash: "IT APPEARS HARPER AND THE CON'S ARE TRYING TO PUT ONE OVER ON THE PUBLIC"
Posts closed: The Toronto Star
Controversy dogs fighter jet contract, Richard J. Brennan, Bruce Campion-Smith, Toronto Star, Jul 16 2010
http://www.thestar.com/article/836658--controversy-dogs-fighter-jet-contract
- 16 billion for 'next-generation' fighter jets - how about the 'next-generation' Canadians.
“It won’t,” MacKay said, when asked if he had any concerns about the single engine failing
Keep in mind that Peter MacKay is the guy that said that 'if it's not in Hansard it didn't happen'
It is, of course, impossible to say in such definite terms "it won't" happen, no matter what it is. For example, Stephen Harper and the Con's getting booted out of office.
And, it sounds like what they said about the Titanic (all the latest technology, and, sink?, "it won't") before it started on its maiden voyage - to the depths of the sea.
I think what MacKay really means is that: "by the time it does happen, Harper and the Con's, including myself, will most likely be out of power anyway, but we will have made all the political hay that can be made from spending 16 billion now, and Bob's your Uncle".
"'it appears the Conservative are trying to put one over on the public' said Alan S. Williams, a retired bureaucrat who served as assistant deputy minister at both national defence and public works."
Yeh, well we let'em.
Mr. Williams, it wouldn't be the first time that we were Con'd by Harper, MacKay and the rest of their gang and there is only one way to make sure it's the last.
"But a senior government official said the advances in engine technology in the last 30 years gives him peace of mind that missions over the Arctic and coastlines can be flown safely in the single-engine F-35.
He said statistical studies show 'no clear advantage' flying with either one engine or two."
Am I hearing this right (morally right that is). If there is "no clear advantage" then what good is all the "eye watering technology" and corresponding 'eye watering' 16 billion dollars bill for. This is, of course, insane.
"MacKay said the new fighter aircraft was needed to meet the 'increasingly complex demands' facing Canada’s air force."
Excuse me for asking, but, Mr. MacKay, just exactly what are these “increasingly complex demands” you are talking about. Just exactly what do you have in mind for Canada's armed forces that we would need such state of the art equipment.
"Lt.-Gen. André Deschamps, who heads the air force, 'This marks a huge step forward in the air force’s capability'"
And the reason we need to spend 16 billion to get this huge increase in the air force's capabilities, is . . .???
"Air force personnel were positively beaming at the news of getting the high-tech toy in their inventory, with several posing for photos beside the mock-up"
I'd love to get a Lamborghini, but I don't - can you guess why? That's right, I don't need it and I can't afford it. How about a little cost-benefit analysis. Boy, for a guy that used to be an economist, Harper seems to go out his way to avoid any kind of rational basis for spending our hard earned tax dollars. Every dollar of our tax dollars he spends is to promote the Con party and Canadians be damned.
"Canada has invested $160 million so far in the development of the F-35, and Canadian companies have received $350 million in contracts."
We seem to be ahead of the game right now.
Why don't we simply say "thank you very much, it's been swell" leave it at that and do some open, transparent and rationally based discussions of the future of Canada's military and from that determine its needs, the associated costs and the benefits derived therefrom.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Controversy dogs fighter jet contract, Richard J. Brennan, Bruce Campion-Smith, Toronto Star, Jul 16 2010
http://www.thestar.com/article/836658--controversy-dogs-fighter-jet-contract
- 16 billion for 'next-generation' fighter jets - how about the 'next-generation' Canadians.
“It won’t,” MacKay said, when asked if he had any concerns about the single engine failing
Keep in mind that Peter MacKay is the guy that said that 'if it's not in Hansard it didn't happen'
It is, of course, impossible to say in such definite terms "it won't" happen, no matter what it is. For example, Stephen Harper and the Con's getting booted out of office.
And, it sounds like what they said about the Titanic (all the latest technology, and, sink?, "it won't") before it started on its maiden voyage - to the depths of the sea.
I think what MacKay really means is that: "by the time it does happen, Harper and the Con's, including myself, will most likely be out of power anyway, but we will have made all the political hay that can be made from spending 16 billion now, and Bob's your Uncle".
"'it appears the Conservative are trying to put one over on the public' said Alan S. Williams, a retired bureaucrat who served as assistant deputy minister at both national defence and public works."
Yeh, well we let'em.
Mr. Williams, it wouldn't be the first time that we were Con'd by Harper, MacKay and the rest of their gang and there is only one way to make sure it's the last.
"But a senior government official said the advances in engine technology in the last 30 years gives him peace of mind that missions over the Arctic and coastlines can be flown safely in the single-engine F-35.
He said statistical studies show 'no clear advantage' flying with either one engine or two."
Am I hearing this right (morally right that is). If there is "no clear advantage" then what good is all the "eye watering technology" and corresponding 'eye watering' 16 billion dollars bill for. This is, of course, insane.
"MacKay said the new fighter aircraft was needed to meet the 'increasingly complex demands' facing Canada’s air force."
Excuse me for asking, but, Mr. MacKay, just exactly what are these “increasingly complex demands” you are talking about. Just exactly what do you have in mind for Canada's armed forces that we would need such state of the art equipment.
"Lt.-Gen. André Deschamps, who heads the air force, 'This marks a huge step forward in the air force’s capability'"
And the reason we need to spend 16 billion to get this huge increase in the air force's capabilities, is . . .???
"Air force personnel were positively beaming at the news of getting the high-tech toy in their inventory, with several posing for photos beside the mock-up"
I'd love to get a Lamborghini, but I don't - can you guess why? That's right, I don't need it and I can't afford it. How about a little cost-benefit analysis. Boy, for a guy that used to be an economist, Harper seems to go out his way to avoid any kind of rational basis for spending our hard earned tax dollars. Every dollar of our tax dollars he spends is to promote the Con party and Canadians be damned.
"Canada has invested $160 million so far in the development of the F-35, and Canadian companies have received $350 million in contracts."
We seem to be ahead of the game right now.
Why don't we simply say "thank you very much, it's been swell" leave it at that and do some open, transparent and rationally based discussions of the future of Canada's military and from that determine its needs, the associated costs and the benefits derived therefrom.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
16 July, 2010
- "Eye watering technology"??? - Peter MacKay, how about the "eye watering bill".
7/16/2010 11:05:14 AM the Globe and Mail
Just what we need: a $16-billion fighter jet, Jeffrey Simpson, 16 Jul.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/just-what-we-need-a-16-billion-fighter-jet/article1641373/ Tab 22
16 billion for 'future generation' fighter jets?
Hey Harper, how about 'future generation' Canadians.
"Canada’s defence planners would obviously like the F-35 for reasons of “interoperability,” and because they love new equipment."
Oh, that's a good reason for spending 16 billion.
If the military loves 'new technology' that much, buy them all DS's - I'm fairly sure that wouldn't cost 16 billion - although buying the game chips might start to be a major expenditure.
Harper uses the latest in stealth techniques for just about everything he does, including the contracts for this procurement. So, I can see how he would be into the F-35.
If the F-35's had been ready last month, Harper could have saved 1 billion in security on the G8 and G20. Just think if Harper had had stealth technology and had been able to call in first strike capabilities in Toronto.
Stephen Harper and the Con's 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.
Harper, Peter Mackay here's a hint: You can be sure that the areas of the world that will require military intervention will put Canadian soldiers against the latest technology in IED's, jet fighters will be collateral at best.
We must all keep in mind, it is not Harper that must pay. I am sure that when he 'retires' he will go to the US and get a great paying position with some ultra-right conservative group or the military-industrial complex, perhaps with Dick Cheney.
We are the ones, each and every one of us to a man, woman and child, that will have to pay. But, worse, it is also our children and our children's children that will be left to pay the crippling financial debt as well as the impacts of Harper's policies regarding just about everything.
We must prevent leaving for future generations a debt burden that is so crippling that the economy collapses into third world oblivion like almost happened with Mulroney.
Let us not leave our children with the resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Just what we need: a $16-billion fighter jet, Jeffrey Simpson, 16 Jul.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/just-what-we-need-a-16-billion-fighter-jet/article1641373/ Tab 22
16 billion for 'future generation' fighter jets?
Hey Harper, how about 'future generation' Canadians.
"Canada’s defence planners would obviously like the F-35 for reasons of “interoperability,” and because they love new equipment."
Oh, that's a good reason for spending 16 billion.
If the military loves 'new technology' that much, buy them all DS's - I'm fairly sure that wouldn't cost 16 billion - although buying the game chips might start to be a major expenditure.
Harper uses the latest in stealth techniques for just about everything he does, including the contracts for this procurement. So, I can see how he would be into the F-35.
If the F-35's had been ready last month, Harper could have saved 1 billion in security on the G8 and G20. Just think if Harper had had stealth technology and had been able to call in first strike capabilities in Toronto.
Stephen Harper and the Con's 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.
Harper, Peter Mackay here's a hint: You can be sure that the areas of the world that will require military intervention will put Canadian soldiers against the latest technology in IED's, jet fighters will be collateral at best.
We must all keep in mind, it is not Harper that must pay. I am sure that when he 'retires' he will go to the US and get a great paying position with some ultra-right conservative group or the military-industrial complex, perhaps with Dick Cheney.
We are the ones, each and every one of us to a man, woman and child, that will have to pay. But, worse, it is also our children and our children's children that will be left to pay the crippling financial debt as well as the impacts of Harper's policies regarding just about everything.
We must prevent leaving for future generations a debt burden that is so crippling that the economy collapses into third world oblivion like almost happened with Mulroney.
Let us not leave our children with the resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
15 July, 2010
- Rock On Iggy!
Has the Star gone iffy on Iggy?, Norman Spector, July 15, 2010 9:05 AM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/spector-vision/has-the-star-gone-iffy-on-iggy/article1640925/
Norman, did you get copyright authorization to reproduce the front page of the Toronto Star - or, is reproducing the whole thing allowed under 'free press' reporting.
You don't even link it to the Toronto Star website.
Please enlighten us.
Oh, and did I mention:
Rock On, Iggy!
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/spector-vision/has-the-star-gone-iffy-on-iggy/article1640925/
Norman, did you get copyright authorization to reproduce the front page of the Toronto Star - or, is reproducing the whole thing allowed under 'free press' reporting.
You don't even link it to the Toronto Star website.
Please enlighten us.
Oh, and did I mention:
Rock On, Iggy!
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper's Ship Sinking? - You Do The Math
Posted: 6:34am, PDT, 15 Jul.'10 CBC News
Tories still ahead, poll suggests, CBC News, July 14, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/07/13/environics-poll.html
"The new poll shows the Conservatives with the support of 35 per cent of decided voters, while the Liberals trail with 32 per cent of the decided vote.
The NDP holds 15 per cent of decided voters and the Green Party stands at six per cent, according to the Environics poll. Nine per cent would vote for the Bloc Québécois nationally, which translates into 37 per cent support in Quebec.
Thirty-one per cent of respondents said they did not know who they would vote for, while eight per cent said they would not vote at all."
I don't think that these result are too surprising as far as party support is concerned
The big thing here is the % of undecided, 31%, and no votes, 8%. If I were Harper I would be very concerned. If this % is increasing this may represent a real and fundamental shift.
The recent Ipsos Reid poll had 8% of voters remain undecided (Calgary Herald, 10 Jul.'10).
It may be that the methodology is reflected in these groups rather than who people say they are supporting.
Harper and the Con's die-hard supporters, epi-centre in Alberta, represent 33%, or at least has been. This poll is statistically in line with this. In other words, this Poll represents the die-hard support for the Con's and really nothing more. The additional 2 points can be explained by the much higher undecided. The number of die-hards in absolute terms doesn't change much and they are not likely to be undecided, no matter what the methodology. So, if you increased the % undecided, the number of die-hards becomes a bigger % of those that are decided. If anything, it could be that Harper and the Con's are in the process of loosing ground.
Also, if someone doesn't attribute 17% to the NDP then they run a big risk regarding any predictions made. 15% is statistically in line with this.
This leaves the Green Party and I suggest that these polls indicate Liberal fortunes are linked to the Green Party. It seems to me that recent polls have put the environment on top of Canadians concerns. The Con government apparently are going to be conducting surveys on Canadians' attitudes towards the environment and Global Warming, green tax, etc., ("Ottawa wants to explore Canadians' understanding of the national and international energy context as well as their tolerance for certain costs. "- CTV News, 11 Jul.'10) and the Con's are masters of polls (and deceit, hypocrisy, obstruction, obscuration, etc., as well - how many times has Harper said that he does not govern by Polls, and how many times has Harper and Paradis and other Con's stated that they will follow the leader, Obama, and of course, wouldn't it be a real slice if Harper brought in a cap-and-Trade or Green Tax.).
The Block support may also reflect this and this poll suggest this, since there is a decrease in Block support with an increase in Liberal.
You do the math.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Tories still ahead, poll suggests, CBC News, July 14, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/07/13/environics-poll.html
"The new poll shows the Conservatives with the support of 35 per cent of decided voters, while the Liberals trail with 32 per cent of the decided vote.
The NDP holds 15 per cent of decided voters and the Green Party stands at six per cent, according to the Environics poll. Nine per cent would vote for the Bloc Québécois nationally, which translates into 37 per cent support in Quebec.
Thirty-one per cent of respondents said they did not know who they would vote for, while eight per cent said they would not vote at all."
I don't think that these result are too surprising as far as party support is concerned
The big thing here is the % of undecided, 31%, and no votes, 8%. If I were Harper I would be very concerned. If this % is increasing this may represent a real and fundamental shift.
The recent Ipsos Reid poll had 8% of voters remain undecided (Calgary Herald, 10 Jul.'10).
It may be that the methodology is reflected in these groups rather than who people say they are supporting.
Harper and the Con's die-hard supporters, epi-centre in Alberta, represent 33%, or at least has been. This poll is statistically in line with this. In other words, this Poll represents the die-hard support for the Con's and really nothing more. The additional 2 points can be explained by the much higher undecided. The number of die-hards in absolute terms doesn't change much and they are not likely to be undecided, no matter what the methodology. So, if you increased the % undecided, the number of die-hards becomes a bigger % of those that are decided. If anything, it could be that Harper and the Con's are in the process of loosing ground.
Also, if someone doesn't attribute 17% to the NDP then they run a big risk regarding any predictions made. 15% is statistically in line with this.
This leaves the Green Party and I suggest that these polls indicate Liberal fortunes are linked to the Green Party. It seems to me that recent polls have put the environment on top of Canadians concerns. The Con government apparently are going to be conducting surveys on Canadians' attitudes towards the environment and Global Warming, green tax, etc., ("Ottawa wants to explore Canadians' understanding of the national and international energy context as well as their tolerance for certain costs. "- CTV News, 11 Jul.'10) and the Con's are masters of polls (and deceit, hypocrisy, obstruction, obscuration, etc., as well - how many times has Harper said that he does not govern by Polls, and how many times has Harper and Paradis and other Con's stated that they will follow the leader, Obama, and of course, wouldn't it be a real slice if Harper brought in a cap-and-Trade or Green Tax.).
The Block support may also reflect this and this poll suggest this, since there is a decrease in Block support with an increase in Liberal.
You do the math.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
14 July, 2010
- Harper Has No Interest in Toronto
Posts closed: The Toronto Star
Bay Street snubbed in Stephen Harper’s stock watchdog plan, Les Whittington, 13 Jul.'10
http://www.thestar.com/article/835048--bay-street-snubbed-in-stephen-harper-s-stock-watchdog-plan
Prime Minister Stephen Harper was blunt. “As an Albertan, I have no interest in seeing this sector centralized in Toronto,”
That just about says it all, doesn't it.
Anyone in Ontario, Quebec, that supports Harper and his Con's ought to take this statement very seriously.
Anyone in Ontario, Quebec, that does not vote to get rid of Harper and the Con's ought to take this statement very seriously.
And Toronto is the worst for attracting Harper and the Con's interest. One need only ask themself why Harper changed the location of the G20 from Tony Clement's riding to Toronto.
I posted on 20 June "Harper the Master Strategist - Give them Toronto"
"If anyone was wondering the real reason Harper had the G20 moved to Toronto, we can now clearly see.[Clement] 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).
Anyone in Canada who thinks that Harper and the Con's do anything for the good of all of Canada ought to take this statement very seriously.
Harper and the Con's have 33% of die-hard supporters whose epi-centre is Alberta. They are the reason Harper is in power and they are the reason Harper would hold onto power in the next election.
These die-hard supporters are right wing extremist who have only Alberta, and perhaps Saskatchewan, a bit of Manitoba and an bit of BC, at heart. Tom Flanagan's comparison of the Calgary stampede to Toronto Gay Pride Parade was not slip of the tongue ("And then there is Gay Pride. Everyone loves a good costume party, even if the dress code is leather chaps and Stetsons for Calgary cowboys and leather hot pants and feather boas for Toronto gays." G&M, 25 May'10)
Anyone who thinks that these supporters have all Canada's best interest at heart should pay more attention to what's going on in other parts of this great country of ours. Anyone who thinks these people have Ontario's best interests at heart are in for a very big surprise.
Harper does everything for partizan interests, everything is to hold onto his current support.
Harper brings in a few ad hoc policies here and there to hopefully pick up a few points to shoot for a majority. But, this is secondary to holding onto his current support, and the rest of Canada be damned.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Bay Street snubbed in Stephen Harper’s stock watchdog plan, Les Whittington, 13 Jul.'10
http://www.thestar.com/article/835048--bay-street-snubbed-in-stephen-harper-s-stock-watchdog-plan
Prime Minister Stephen Harper was blunt. “As an Albertan, I have no interest in seeing this sector centralized in Toronto,”
That just about says it all, doesn't it.
Anyone in Ontario, Quebec, that supports Harper and his Con's ought to take this statement very seriously.
Anyone in Ontario, Quebec, that does not vote to get rid of Harper and the Con's ought to take this statement very seriously.
And Toronto is the worst for attracting Harper and the Con's interest. One need only ask themself why Harper changed the location of the G20 from Tony Clement's riding to Toronto.
I posted on 20 June "Harper the Master Strategist - Give them Toronto"
"If anyone was wondering the real reason Harper had the G20 moved to Toronto, we can now clearly see.[Clement] 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).
Anyone in Canada who thinks that Harper and the Con's do anything for the good of all of Canada ought to take this statement very seriously.
Harper and the Con's have 33% of die-hard supporters whose epi-centre is Alberta. They are the reason Harper is in power and they are the reason Harper would hold onto power in the next election.
These die-hard supporters are right wing extremist who have only Alberta, and perhaps Saskatchewan, a bit of Manitoba and an bit of BC, at heart. Tom Flanagan's comparison of the Calgary stampede to Toronto Gay Pride Parade was not slip of the tongue ("And then there is Gay Pride. Everyone loves a good costume party, even if the dress code is leather chaps and Stetsons for Calgary cowboys and leather hot pants and feather boas for Toronto gays." G&M, 25 May'10)
Anyone who thinks that these supporters have all Canada's best interest at heart should pay more attention to what's going on in other parts of this great country of ours. Anyone who thinks these people have Ontario's best interests at heart are in for a very big surprise.
Harper does everything for partizan interests, everything is to hold onto his current support.
Harper brings in a few ad hoc policies here and there to hopefully pick up a few points to shoot for a majority. But, this is secondary to holding onto his current support, and the rest of Canada be damned.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
13 July, 2010
- A Con by any other name . . .
Submitted: 8:19am, 13 Jul.'10 CBC News
Senate passes budget bill, July 13, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/07/12/senate-budget-bill.html
"Senators voted 48-44 against the changes made by opposition members of its finance committee to Bill C-9 and passed the legislation without amendments."
There are 105 seats in the Senate, the Con's now have 52 seats. The vote was 48 - 44. So, how about a breakdown: Con, Lib, independent (other?) of the voting, absentees, abstentions, etc.
Who ever tough that Harper would be in power long enough to appoint enough Senators to have a majority in the Senate. Of course, if you believed Harper, who would have thought that he would appoint anyone to the Senate at all.
We're being Con'd by Stephen Harper once again. This 'Budge Bill' should never have been tabled in the first place. What about next time, and hopefully there won't be a next time, what will Harper put in his Budget Bill
Now the only thing that can keep Harper in check, is 'We The People".
All Canadians need to give Harper and his Con's a sober second thought.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Senate passes budget bill, July 13, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/07/12/senate-budget-bill.html
"Senators voted 48-44 against the changes made by opposition members of its finance committee to Bill C-9 and passed the legislation without amendments."
There are 105 seats in the Senate, the Con's now have 52 seats. The vote was 48 - 44. So, how about a breakdown: Con, Lib, independent (other?) of the voting, absentees, abstentions, etc.
Who ever tough that Harper would be in power long enough to appoint enough Senators to have a majority in the Senate. Of course, if you believed Harper, who would have thought that he would appoint anyone to the Senate at all.
We're being Con'd by Stephen Harper once again. This 'Budge Bill' should never have been tabled in the first place. What about next time, and hopefully there won't be a next time, what will Harper put in his Budget Bill
Now the only thing that can keep Harper in check, is 'We The People".
All Canadians need to give Harper and his Con's a sober second thought.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
12 July, 2010
- Harper Secret Committees - Be Scared, Very Scared.
Posted: 7/12/2010 10:34:00 AM the Globe and Mail
David Johnston is no partisan appointee, Norman Spector, 12 Jul.'10,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/spector-vision/david-johnston-is-no-partisan-appointee/article1636428/ Tab 2
see also:
Harper’s quest for a new G-G: partisans need not apply, 12 Jul.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harpers-quest-for-a-new-g-g-partisans-need-not-apply/article1636004/
How many times has the media said:
Stephen Harper does nothing that isn't partizan. Stephen Harper is the master political strategist. And, don't forget about the MEP's.
This panel was secret - the hallmark of Harper.
With all due respect to those on the panel. It is important that the media shine their light on Harper's choice for them.
The Soudas E-mail does very little to dispel concerns.
As long as it was Harper that made the choices, especially in secret, all Canadians should be very concerned. This is the sad realities of the Harper track record.
It seems to me that the UofC Pol Sc department is the 'intellectual' centre of Con'ism in Canada. Oh, I forgot, Tom Flanagan has reasserted his intellectual independence from Harper and the Con's.
Rainer Knopff is a "member of a group known as the Calgary School" (a group of like-minded academics from the University of Calgary’s political science and history departments in Calgary, Alberta, Canada . . .
The School is of a decidedly conservative political leaning, and has been described within The Walrus magazine as "a rambunctious, Rocky Mountain brand of libertarianism" that seeks "lower taxes, less federal government, and free markets unfettered by social programs such as medicare that keep citizens from being forced to pull up their own socks." (Wikipedia)
Sounds a lot like Harper and the Con's doesn't it.
The clincher is, of course, when Norman Spector says its non-partizan.
Be scared, very scared.
Also, just how many other secret committees does Harper have on the go.
Here's an American tradition that ought to be borrowed on such occasions:
PUBLIC, OPEN AND TRANSPARENT VETTING
If Mr. Johnston is such a Constitutional and legal expert where did he stand on the past four constitutional issues:
- dissolving parliament for the last election,
- Proroguing Parliament in Dec '08,
- Proroguing Parliament Dec.'09
- the refusal of Harper to abide by the Will of Parliament with regard to the Afghan Detainee documents.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
David Johnston is no partisan appointee, Norman Spector, 12 Jul.'10,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/spector-vision/david-johnston-is-no-partisan-appointee/article1636428/ Tab 2
see also:
Harper’s quest for a new G-G: partisans need not apply, 12 Jul.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harpers-quest-for-a-new-g-g-partisans-need-not-apply/article1636004/
How many times has the media said:
Stephen Harper does nothing that isn't partizan. Stephen Harper is the master political strategist. And, don't forget about the MEP's.
This panel was secret - the hallmark of Harper.
With all due respect to those on the panel. It is important that the media shine their light on Harper's choice for them.
The Soudas E-mail does very little to dispel concerns.
As long as it was Harper that made the choices, especially in secret, all Canadians should be very concerned. This is the sad realities of the Harper track record.
It seems to me that the UofC Pol Sc department is the 'intellectual' centre of Con'ism in Canada. Oh, I forgot, Tom Flanagan has reasserted his intellectual independence from Harper and the Con's.
Rainer Knopff is a "member of a group known as the Calgary School" (a group of like-minded academics from the University of Calgary’s political science and history departments in Calgary, Alberta, Canada . . .
The School is of a decidedly conservative political leaning, and has been described within The Walrus magazine as "a rambunctious, Rocky Mountain brand of libertarianism" that seeks "lower taxes, less federal government, and free markets unfettered by social programs such as medicare that keep citizens from being forced to pull up their own socks." (Wikipedia)
Sounds a lot like Harper and the Con's doesn't it.
The clincher is, of course, when Norman Spector says its non-partizan.
Be scared, very scared.
Also, just how many other secret committees does Harper have on the go.
Here's an American tradition that ought to be borrowed on such occasions:
PUBLIC, OPEN AND TRANSPARENT VETTING
If Mr. Johnston is such a Constitutional and legal expert where did he stand on the past four constitutional issues:
- dissolving parliament for the last election,
- Proroguing Parliament in Dec '08,
- Proroguing Parliament Dec.'09
- the refusal of Harper to abide by the Will of Parliament with regard to the Afghan Detainee documents.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
11 July, 2010
- Harper, What's All This Non-Sense, Anyways
Posted: 7/11/2010 11:01:14 AM The Globe and Mail
This budget bill is overstuffed, Loading much of the government's agenda into one omnibus bill and then demanding its passage on threat of an election is entirely inappropriate in a mature democracy, From Saturday's Globe and Mail , Jul. 10, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/this-budget-bill-is-overstuffed/article1635128/
Tab 9
"There is no shortage of issues at stake with the Harper government's overstuffed budget bill. But those issues – abuse of process, contempt for Parliament and unseemly political threats – hardly seem like the sort of platform one would want to take to the public for approval."
Doug Finley is threatening an election over the humongous 'budget' bill, despite its gross and blatant "abuse of process, contempt for Parliament and unseemly political threats"
On the other hand, putting all the legislation for a session into one huge 'budget' bill and ramming it through by threat and intimidation has a certain efficiency about it and perhaps this is Harper's application of his lecture to the other Western countries regarding reducing spending. But then tyranny and totalitarianism is always cheaper than open and free Democratic society.
Where does Harper weigh in on this 'sabre rattling' stuff.
Lets see:
- Harper in explaining his choice for new senator:
"In a release announcing her appointment Friday, the prime minister said Ataullahjan's political and social activism has:
'earned her a reputation of one who both stands against violence and stands for peaceful dialogue and consensus building.' [Stephen Harper]" (CBC 9 Jul)
(why would that be the consideration in choosing a Senator)
- And at the annual Con barbeque in Calgary:
"Friends, a Liberal-NDP-Bloc Quebecois coalition is something we can never let happen to this country."[Stephen Harper](Winnipeg Free Press, 11 Jul)
What does Harper mean by these statements anyway, they seem a bit oblique.
- Then, there is Harper's appointment of a new Governor General, the choice of whom is yet to be made transparent, especially such things as his political leanings and position on the Constitutional challenges of the past year two years, although I have a feeling we may find out in the not too distant future.
Election?
You tell me what this all means.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
This budget bill is overstuffed, Loading much of the government's agenda into one omnibus bill and then demanding its passage on threat of an election is entirely inappropriate in a mature democracy, From Saturday's Globe and Mail , Jul. 10, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/this-budget-bill-is-overstuffed/article1635128/
Tab 9
"There is no shortage of issues at stake with the Harper government's overstuffed budget bill. But those issues – abuse of process, contempt for Parliament and unseemly political threats – hardly seem like the sort of platform one would want to take to the public for approval."
Doug Finley is threatening an election over the humongous 'budget' bill, despite its gross and blatant "abuse of process, contempt for Parliament and unseemly political threats"
On the other hand, putting all the legislation for a session into one huge 'budget' bill and ramming it through by threat and intimidation has a certain efficiency about it and perhaps this is Harper's application of his lecture to the other Western countries regarding reducing spending. But then tyranny and totalitarianism is always cheaper than open and free Democratic society.
Where does Harper weigh in on this 'sabre rattling' stuff.
Lets see:
- Harper in explaining his choice for new senator:
"In a release announcing her appointment Friday, the prime minister said Ataullahjan's political and social activism has:
'earned her a reputation of one who both stands against violence and stands for peaceful dialogue and consensus building.' [Stephen Harper]" (CBC 9 Jul)
(why would that be the consideration in choosing a Senator)
- And at the annual Con barbeque in Calgary:
"Friends, a Liberal-NDP-Bloc Quebecois coalition is something we can never let happen to this country."[Stephen Harper](Winnipeg Free Press, 11 Jul)
What does Harper mean by these statements anyway, they seem a bit oblique.
- Then, there is Harper's appointment of a new Governor General, the choice of whom is yet to be made transparent, especially such things as his political leanings and position on the Constitutional challenges of the past year two years, although I have a feeling we may find out in the not too distant future.
Election?
You tell me what this all means.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
10 July, 2010
- Stephen Harper, We had Better Watch Him Very Closely
Ex-Tory candidate named to Senate, Ataullahjan's appointment comes ahead of crucial budget vote, July 9, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/07/09/tories-new-senator-ataullahjan.html
"In a release announcing her appointment Friday, the prime minister said Ataullahjan's political and social activism has:
'earned her a reputation of one who both stands against violence and stands for peaceful dialogue and consensus building.' [Prime Minister Harper]"
Am I reading this right (morally, that is).
Why would this be the factor considered in choosing a Senator.
What's going on here.
Is this an indication of a dark corner. You know, the type the media should be shining a light on
I mean besides shining a light on the sheer hypocrisy of Stephen Harper in appointing Senators and restrictions on our Democracy that the 880 page 'budget implementation bill' which contains many provisions that simply have been included because Stephen Harper knows they would never be accepted by parliament on their own.
The people of Canada have some serious reflecting to do.
We, the people, are the ones that are allowing Harper and the Con's to ruin this country of ours and we, the people, are the only ones that can put an end to it, by simply giving Harper and his Con's the boot.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/07/09/tories-new-senator-ataullahjan.html
"In a release announcing her appointment Friday, the prime minister said Ataullahjan's political and social activism has:
'earned her a reputation of one who both stands against violence and stands for peaceful dialogue and consensus building.' [Prime Minister Harper]"
Am I reading this right (morally, that is).
Why would this be the factor considered in choosing a Senator.
What's going on here.
Is this an indication of a dark corner. You know, the type the media should be shining a light on
I mean besides shining a light on the sheer hypocrisy of Stephen Harper in appointing Senators and restrictions on our Democracy that the 880 page 'budget implementation bill' which contains many provisions that simply have been included because Stephen Harper knows they would never be accepted by parliament on their own.
The people of Canada have some serious reflecting to do.
We, the people, are the ones that are allowing Harper and the Con's to ruin this country of ours and we, the people, are the only ones that can put an end to it, by simply giving Harper and his Con's the boot.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- MacHarper, "What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?"
Posted: 10:18 AM on July 10, 2010 The Calgary Herald
Canadians stand firm in political camps: poll, Allison Cross, Canwest News Service July 10, 2010
Posted: 11:36 AM on July 10, 2010
http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Canadians+firm+political+camps+despite+Queen/3258278/story.html#comments
[same article, different section of the paper]
see also: Montreal Gazette]
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Canadians+firm+political+camps+poll/3259583/story.html
On July 8 I posted to cicblog.com/comments.html
[excerpt]
Stephen Harper and the Con's die-hard supporters, epi-centre in Alberta, represent 33%. The recent Ekos poll is statistically in line with this. In other words, this Poll represents the die-hard support for the Con's and nothing more.
There is no spike, up-surge, increase in popularity, in this Poll and given that Canadians may very well be feeling good about themselves it is not being translated into support for Harper and the Con's.
This is particularly significant given the billions of dollars Harper and the Con's spent on the G8-20 precisely for partizan reasons and to boost Harper and Con popularity; and, Harper's making himself front and centre during the Queen's visit.
Also, if someone doesn't attribute 17% to the NDP then they run a big risk regarding any predictions made.
You do the math.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Canadians stand firm in political camps: poll, Allison Cross, Canwest News Service July 10, 2010
Posted: 11:36 AM on July 10, 2010
http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Canadians+firm+political+camps+despite+Queen/3258278/story.html#comments
[same article, different section of the paper]
see also: Montreal Gazette]
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Canadians+firm+political+camps+poll/3259583/story.html
On July 8 I posted to cicblog.com/comments.html
[excerpt]
Stephen Harper and the Con's die-hard supporters, epi-centre in Alberta, represent 33%. The recent Ekos poll is statistically in line with this. In other words, this Poll represents the die-hard support for the Con's and nothing more.
There is no spike, up-surge, increase in popularity, in this Poll and given that Canadians may very well be feeling good about themselves it is not being translated into support for Harper and the Con's.
This is particularly significant given the billions of dollars Harper and the Con's spent on the G8-20 precisely for partizan reasons and to boost Harper and Con popularity; and, Harper's making himself front and centre during the Queen's visit.
Also, if someone doesn't attribute 17% to the NDP then they run a big risk regarding any predictions made.
You do the math.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Elizabeth May a Free Agent, Now There's an Opportunity to Strike a Blow For The Free World
Posts Not Allowed, The Toronto Star
Gorrie: Infighting over Green Party leadership comes to a head , 10 Jul.'10, The Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/834082--gorrie-infighting-over-green-party-leadership-comes-to-a-head
Elizabeth May is one of the sharpest tools in the Federal political shed and could easily be a major mover and shaker once she gets a seat and a little experience.
If May becomes a free agent, the Liberals should make every effort to get her on their teem, before say the NDP decide to go after her.
Given the importance of Global Warming and its re-establishment as a top concern for Canadians and given the Liberal number at the polls seems to be tied to the Green Party numbers, a Green Party in disarray could actually be the best thing that could happen for the Liberals in the near future. Keep in mind Mr. Stephen Harper your incredibly partizan and self-serving tenet 'losers don't form governments'.
May's statement: “I’d rather have no Green seats and Stephen Harper lose than a full caucus that stares across the floor at Stephen Harper as prime minister” expresses the realities of the current political constellation and emphasizes the seriousness and harm of having Stephen Harper and the Con's continue to rule.
Not only should everyone in the Green Party and their supporters consider this very seriously but all the almost 2/3 of Canadians that voted against Harper in the last election. Harper and the Cons have done great harm to Canada both Internationally and domestically and will do much more of allowed to continue.
May's statement reflects the reality that we, the people, allow Harper to remain in power and it is only we, the people, that can get rid of him.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Gorrie: Infighting over Green Party leadership comes to a head , 10 Jul.'10, The Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/834082--gorrie-infighting-over-green-party-leadership-comes-to-a-head
Elizabeth May is one of the sharpest tools in the Federal political shed and could easily be a major mover and shaker once she gets a seat and a little experience.
If May becomes a free agent, the Liberals should make every effort to get her on their teem, before say the NDP decide to go after her.
Given the importance of Global Warming and its re-establishment as a top concern for Canadians and given the Liberal number at the polls seems to be tied to the Green Party numbers, a Green Party in disarray could actually be the best thing that could happen for the Liberals in the near future. Keep in mind Mr. Stephen Harper your incredibly partizan and self-serving tenet 'losers don't form governments'.
May's statement: “I’d rather have no Green seats and Stephen Harper lose than a full caucus that stares across the floor at Stephen Harper as prime minister” expresses the realities of the current political constellation and emphasizes the seriousness and harm of having Stephen Harper and the Con's continue to rule.
Not only should everyone in the Green Party and their supporters consider this very seriously but all the almost 2/3 of Canadians that voted against Harper in the last election. Harper and the Cons have done great harm to Canada both Internationally and domestically and will do much more of allowed to continue.
May's statement reflects the reality that we, the people, allow Harper to remain in power and it is only we, the people, that can get rid of him.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
08 July, 2010
- Harper track record = we must vet Harper's choice for GG very closely.
Submitted: 9:23am, PDT, CBC News
Re-submitted: 9:32am, PDT, CBC News
Johnston named Canada's next governor general, July 8, 2010 |CBC News,
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/08/governor-general-johnston.html
Tab 65, Tab 69
With all due respect for David Johnston - the position of GG will be much too important in the near future to stand on ceremony.
Mr. Johnston will very likely be called upon to make some very important decisions in the near future, decisions that may very well determine the fate of Canada for many years to come.
If Mr. Johnston is such a Constitutional and legal expert where did he stand on the past four constitutional issues:
- dissolving parliament for the last election,
- Proroguing Parliament in Dec '08,
- Proroguing Parliament Dec.'09
- the refusal of Harper to abide by the Will of Parliament with regard to the Afghan Detainee documents.
Given Mr. Johnston's background it would be surprising if he did not have a well developed opinion on these matters.
It may be he refrained from making any public statements, but what about otherwise.
For example, did he give, or offer, directly or indirectly, Harper and the Con's, or the current Governor General or anyone else involved, for that matter, any advise and if so what was it.
Normally this would be private, but Harper appointing him and Mr. Johnston accepting makes it public and important.
When someone says that someone has "gained the confidence of" Stephen Harper it scars me. It seems to me that many times it been observed that Stephen Harper does nothing for non-partizan reasons. Why would Harper be any different now.
This is truly one of those times that the media should make every efforts to shine their light on this appointment.
I am not saying that Mr. Johnston is not above reproach.
What I am saying is: because of the vital importance, and because of Harper track record, we must vet this choice very closely.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Re-submitted: 9:32am, PDT, CBC News
Johnston named Canada's next governor general, July 8, 2010 |CBC News,
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/08/governor-general-johnston.html
Tab 65, Tab 69
With all due respect for David Johnston - the position of GG will be much too important in the near future to stand on ceremony.
Mr. Johnston will very likely be called upon to make some very important decisions in the near future, decisions that may very well determine the fate of Canada for many years to come.
If Mr. Johnston is such a Constitutional and legal expert where did he stand on the past four constitutional issues:
- dissolving parliament for the last election,
- Proroguing Parliament in Dec '08,
- Proroguing Parliament Dec.'09
- the refusal of Harper to abide by the Will of Parliament with regard to the Afghan Detainee documents.
Given Mr. Johnston's background it would be surprising if he did not have a well developed opinion on these matters.
It may be he refrained from making any public statements, but what about otherwise.
For example, did he give, or offer, directly or indirectly, Harper and the Con's, or the current Governor General or anyone else involved, for that matter, any advise and if so what was it.
Normally this would be private, but Harper appointing him and Mr. Johnston accepting makes it public and important.
When someone says that someone has "gained the confidence of" Stephen Harper it scars me. It seems to me that many times it been observed that Stephen Harper does nothing for non-partizan reasons. Why would Harper be any different now.
This is truly one of those times that the media should make every efforts to shine their light on this appointment.
I am not saying that Mr. Johnston is not above reproach.
What I am saying is: because of the vital importance, and because of Harper track record, we must vet this choice very closely.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper no longer Con'g Canadians
"Out, damned spot! out, I say! One; two: why, then, ’tis time to do ’t. Hell is murky! Fie, my lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account? Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him?" (Lady MacBeth, Shakespeare, MacBeth)
Posted: 7/8/2010 11:43:05 AM The Globe and Mail
'Grave doubts rising in Liberal land' as support hits new low, Gloria Galloway, July 8, 2010, The Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/grave-doubts-rising-in-liberal-land-as-support-hits-new-low/article1632695/ Tab 42
“The fortunes of the Conservative Party of Canada and Stephen Harper now appear to oscillate more clearly with the national mood. When Canadians now feel better about the country they tend to assign special bonus points to Stephen Harper.”
It is pretty normal that the Party that is in power experience an increase in popularity, whether temporary or not is a different question, when the country feels good about itself.
That, of course, is why Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and the Con's have been going around claiming credit for Canada's Banking system and strong economic foundation (when it was, in actuality, directly due to the policies of Jean Chrétien and the Liberals during the 90's when they pulled us away from the brick of financial collapse.)
However, I am not so sure that the results of this Poll can be explained in this fashion.
Harper and the Con's die-hard supporters, epi-centre in Alberta, represent 33%. This poll is statistically in line with this. In other words, this Poll represents the die-hard support for the Con's and nothing more.
There is no spike, up-surge, increase in popularity, in this Poll and given that Canadians may very well be feeling good about themselves it is not being translated into support for Harper and the Con's.
This is particularly significant given the billions of dollars Harper and the Con's spent on the G8-20 precisely for partizan reasons and to boost Harper and Con popularity; and, Harper's making himself front and centre during the Queen's visit.
I suspect that this Poll (and the last one) indicate that Canadians are upset about the way in which Harper and the Con's are making Canadians 'players' on the international scene - spending billions of Canadian hard earned tax dollars while operating with deficits that make Brian Mulroney look like a boy scout. It could also be impacted by the introduction of the HST and its association with Harper, as it should be. In other words this Poll may indicate that the tax payers of Canada are no longer allowing themselves to be Con'd. Now that's significant.
Also, if someone doesn't attribute 17% to the NDP then they run a big risk regarding any predictions made.
This leaves the Green Party and I suggest that the Liberal fortunes are linked to the Green Party. It seems to me that recent polls have put the environment on top of Canadians concerns. The Block support may also reflect this.
You do the math.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Posted: 7/8/2010 11:43:05 AM The Globe and Mail
'Grave doubts rising in Liberal land' as support hits new low, Gloria Galloway, July 8, 2010, The Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/grave-doubts-rising-in-liberal-land-as-support-hits-new-low/article1632695/ Tab 42
“The fortunes of the Conservative Party of Canada and Stephen Harper now appear to oscillate more clearly with the national mood. When Canadians now feel better about the country they tend to assign special bonus points to Stephen Harper.”
It is pretty normal that the Party that is in power experience an increase in popularity, whether temporary or not is a different question, when the country feels good about itself.
That, of course, is why Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and the Con's have been going around claiming credit for Canada's Banking system and strong economic foundation (when it was, in actuality, directly due to the policies of Jean Chrétien and the Liberals during the 90's when they pulled us away from the brick of financial collapse.)
However, I am not so sure that the results of this Poll can be explained in this fashion.
Harper and the Con's die-hard supporters, epi-centre in Alberta, represent 33%. This poll is statistically in line with this. In other words, this Poll represents the die-hard support for the Con's and nothing more.
There is no spike, up-surge, increase in popularity, in this Poll and given that Canadians may very well be feeling good about themselves it is not being translated into support for Harper and the Con's.
This is particularly significant given the billions of dollars Harper and the Con's spent on the G8-20 precisely for partizan reasons and to boost Harper and Con popularity; and, Harper's making himself front and centre during the Queen's visit.
I suspect that this Poll (and the last one) indicate that Canadians are upset about the way in which Harper and the Con's are making Canadians 'players' on the international scene - spending billions of Canadian hard earned tax dollars while operating with deficits that make Brian Mulroney look like a boy scout. It could also be impacted by the introduction of the HST and its association with Harper, as it should be. In other words this Poll may indicate that the tax payers of Canada are no longer allowing themselves to be Con'd. Now that's significant.
Also, if someone doesn't attribute 17% to the NDP then they run a big risk regarding any predictions made.
This leaves the Green Party and I suggest that the Liberal fortunes are linked to the Green Party. It seems to me that recent polls have put the environment on top of Canadians concerns. The Block support may also reflect this.
You do the math.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Con's By Stephen Harper Again
Submitted: 7:26am, PDT, 8 Jul.'10
G20 fence costs $9.4M, nearly double original estimate, Lauren O’Neil, 7 Jul.'10, The Toronto Star
So Does That Mean The 1 Billion in Security Costs Will Come In At Twice That (2 Billion) - Thanks Steve.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
G20 fence costs $9.4M, nearly double original estimate, Lauren O’Neil, 7 Jul.'10, The Toronto Star
So Does That Mean The 1 Billion in Security Costs Will Come In At Twice That (2 Billion) - Thanks Steve.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
07 July, 2010
- The 'Right' choice is not the right choice
Lorne Gunter: How the Liberal elites lost touch with Canadians, 7 Jul.'10, National Post
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/07/lorne-gunter-how-the-liberal-elites-lost-touch-with-canadians/
Lorne Gunter: How the Liberal elites lost touch with Canadians, 7 Jul.'10, National Post
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/07/lorne-gunter-how-the-liberal-elites-lost-touch-with-canadians/
Mr. Gunter, you have turned away from more than just the Liberal Party.
The 'Right' choice is not the right choice.
Stephen Harper and the Con's represent a dismantling of Canada and a nation, an abdication of Federal nationality to the individual provinces. The Harper policies are designed to benefit a small part of Canadian society, with epi-centre in Alberta and the rest of Canada be damned.
The Con policy of giving every family with children under six a tax credit is a prime example of this process. It is general knowledge that the $1,100 (minus tax etc.) a year doesn't come close to helping those that need help. At best it is a salve for the 'haves' of this great nation to tell themselves they are somehow helping the 'have-nots'.
And after all, that is what the Federal Government is all about: 'to help those in our society that need help and protect those that need protection'.
That is what Pearson and Trudeau were all about, uniting all Canadians to help those that need it, building a nation that we all can be proud of and not something where only a few 'elites' benefit and at the expense of the rest.
We are an economy based society. The 'have-nots' are the reason the 'haves' have. For the 'haves' to suggest that the 'have-nots' not benefits from the wealth they generate is a form of elitism that is a throw back to medieval times.
Another example are the Tar Sands. They are allowed to pollute with free abandon generating huge profits that flow outside Canada and it is the people of Canada that is left to clean up after them. Not only this the good tax payers of Canada must shoulder the burden of the subsidies that these companies get.
Economic elitism is not 'Empowerment of the Individual'. Liberating all members of our society to contribute according to their abilities empowers not just a blest few, but empowers us all, gives everyone the freedom to make choices, and empowers us as a nation.
This is the underlying and unifying thread that brings all Canadians together and empowers them to achieve that which as individuals they, whether individually 'empowered' or not, could never dream of achieving. Without it, Canada is nothing more than a bunch of loosely strung out population centres with only one common thread - vis.: 'everyone for themselves'.
This is not elitism it is nation building.
Let us not allow Harper and his Con's to tear apart in a few short years what it has taken our forefathers generations to build through their blood, sweat and tears, of which health care and retirement income, are direct results.
Let us not leave our children with the resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/07/lorne-gunter-how-the-liberal-elites-lost-touch-with-canadians/
Lorne Gunter: How the Liberal elites lost touch with Canadians, 7 Jul.'10, National Post
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/07/lorne-gunter-how-the-liberal-elites-lost-touch-with-canadians/
Mr. Gunter, you have turned away from more than just the Liberal Party.
The 'Right' choice is not the right choice.
Stephen Harper and the Con's represent a dismantling of Canada and a nation, an abdication of Federal nationality to the individual provinces. The Harper policies are designed to benefit a small part of Canadian society, with epi-centre in Alberta and the rest of Canada be damned.
The Con policy of giving every family with children under six a tax credit is a prime example of this process. It is general knowledge that the $1,100 (minus tax etc.) a year doesn't come close to helping those that need help. At best it is a salve for the 'haves' of this great nation to tell themselves they are somehow helping the 'have-nots'.
And after all, that is what the Federal Government is all about: 'to help those in our society that need help and protect those that need protection'.
That is what Pearson and Trudeau were all about, uniting all Canadians to help those that need it, building a nation that we all can be proud of and not something where only a few 'elites' benefit and at the expense of the rest.
We are an economy based society. The 'have-nots' are the reason the 'haves' have. For the 'haves' to suggest that the 'have-nots' not benefits from the wealth they generate is a form of elitism that is a throw back to medieval times.
Another example are the Tar Sands. They are allowed to pollute with free abandon generating huge profits that flow outside Canada and it is the people of Canada that is left to clean up after them. Not only this the good tax payers of Canada must shoulder the burden of the subsidies that these companies get.
Economic elitism is not 'Empowerment of the Individual'. Liberating all members of our society to contribute according to their abilities empowers not just a blest few, but empowers us all, gives everyone the freedom to make choices, and empowers us as a nation.
This is the underlying and unifying thread that brings all Canadians together and empowers them to achieve that which as individuals they, whether individually 'empowered' or not, could never dream of achieving. Without it, Canada is nothing more than a bunch of loosely strung out population centres with only one common thread - vis.: 'everyone for themselves'.
This is not elitism it is nation building.
Let us not allow Harper and his Con's to tear apart in a few short years what it has taken our forefathers generations to build through their blood, sweat and tears, of which health care and retirement income, are direct results.
Let us not leave our children with the resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
05 July, 2010
- Rock On, Iggy!
Posted: 7/5/2010 12:00:32 PM
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Ignatieff packs rural-specific bag for summer bus tour, Globe and Mail, Jul. 05, 2010 6:54AM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ignatieff-packs-rural-specific-bag-for-summer-bus-tour/article1627587/ Tab
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Ignatieff packs rural-specific bag for summer bus tour, Globe and Mail, Jul. 05, 2010 6:54AM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ignatieff-packs-rural-specific-bag-for-summer-bus-tour/article1627587/ Tab
- Harper, Riddle Me This 'If There Is Nothing To Hide, Why Hide It'
Posted: 10:46 AM on July 5, 2010
Government fails to tell public of $869M preferred-supplier contracts, Kathryn May, Canwest News Service · Sunday, Jul. 4, 2010
Is anyone really surprised.
After all Harper is the Master of obscuration, obstruction, obfuscation, concealment, distortion, anti-transparency and outright MEP's.
Also, Harper and the Con's treat the Canadian treasury, i.e., our hard earned tax dollars, as if it were their own based on the age conservative old principle 'to the winners goes the spoils'.
An interesting question, of course, is why Harper and the Con's are doing this.
Stephen Harper, answer me this riddle: "If there is nothing to hide then why hide it".
Last week Harper converted downtown Toronto and well over 1 billion dollars to his own use so he could hold a private party for a few photo op's for himself and other Con's with the leaders of the world. Give me a break.
Harper and the Con spending is making the cost of setting up the gun registry look like kid's stuff and Liberals like they were a bunch of pikers (they dealt merely in millions, Harper deals in billions).
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Government fails to tell public of $869M preferred-supplier contracts, Kathryn May, Canwest News Service · Sunday, Jul. 4, 2010
Is anyone really surprised.
After all Harper is the Master of obscuration, obstruction, obfuscation, concealment, distortion, anti-transparency and outright MEP's.
Also, Harper and the Con's treat the Canadian treasury, i.e., our hard earned tax dollars, as if it were their own based on the age conservative old principle 'to the winners goes the spoils'.
An interesting question, of course, is why Harper and the Con's are doing this.
Stephen Harper, answer me this riddle: "If there is nothing to hide then why hide it".
Last week Harper converted downtown Toronto and well over 1 billion dollars to his own use so he could hold a private party for a few photo op's for himself and other Con's with the leaders of the world. Give me a break.
Harper and the Con spending is making the cost of setting up the gun registry look like kid's stuff and Liberals like they were a bunch of pikers (they dealt merely in millions, Harper deals in billions).
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
04 July, 2010
- Only in Canada You Say, Pity.
Submitted: 8:15am, PDT, 4 Jul.'10 CBC News,
Queen's Toronto tour begins, Attends church, then it's off to the races, July 4, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/04/queen-ontario-sunday.html
Here's a co-incidence for you (if you believe in co-incidences).
30th annual Pride Parade to wind through T.O. Sunday.
The route winds along Church Street and Bloor Street East, moving west on Bloor to Yonge Street. It will then head south on Yonge Street to Gerrard Street, and east on Gerrard Street back to Church Street.
Her Majesty, Elizabeth II, will attend an hour-long service at St. James Cathedral, at Church and King. In the afternoon, she heads to Woodbine Racetrack for the 151st running of the Queen's Plate.
Do you think that perhaps Queen Elizabeth will take in a bit of the parade. After all, it is one of the largest of its kind in the world. I would.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Queen's Toronto tour begins, Attends church, then it's off to the races, July 4, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/04/queen-ontario-sunday.html
Here's a co-incidence for you (if you believe in co-incidences).
30th annual Pride Parade to wind through T.O. Sunday.
The route winds along Church Street and Bloor Street East, moving west on Bloor to Yonge Street. It will then head south on Yonge Street to Gerrard Street, and east on Gerrard Street back to Church Street.
Her Majesty, Elizabeth II, will attend an hour-long service at St. James Cathedral, at Church and King. In the afternoon, she heads to Woodbine Racetrack for the 151st running of the Queen's Plate.
Do you think that perhaps Queen Elizabeth will take in a bit of the parade. After all, it is one of the largest of its kind in the world. I would.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
03 July, 2010
- Mea Maybe Culpa
Correction:
On 28 June I wrote:
"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
. . .
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).
***
and on 30 Jun.'10 I wrote the same thing:
"- 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"
***
The riding in question is not Jim Prentice's but Tony Clement's riding.
I'm blaming my text editor.
And, all Harper's Ministers are the same anyway, they simply do and say everything as directed in the Harper MEP's. After a while it gets hard to distinguish one Con from another.
However, I will take under advisement to endeavor to promise to try to be more careful in the future.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
On 28 June I wrote:
"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
. . .
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).
***
and on 30 Jun.'10 I wrote the same thing:
"- 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"
***
The riding in question is not Jim Prentice's but Tony Clement's riding.
I'm blaming my text editor.
And, all Harper's Ministers are the same anyway, they simply do and say everything as directed in the Harper MEP's. After a while it gets hard to distinguish one Con from another.
However, I will take under advisement to endeavor to promise to try to be more careful in the future.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Mr. Prentice, I Know Stephen Harper, and Stephen Harper is no Barack Obama
Submitted: 8:01 am, PDT, 3 Jul.'10, CBCV News
Obama announces $2B for solar power, 3 Jul.'10, The Associated Press
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/07/03/obama-solar-power.html
"The U.S. government is handing out nearly $2 billion US for new solar plants that President Barack Obama says will create thousands of jobs and increase the use of renewable energy sources.
. . .
'We're going to keep competing aggressively to make sure the jobs and industries of the future are taking root right here in America' Obama said."
Wow, now that's a great idea, use the stimulus spending to create thousands of permanent jobs, establish a new and exponentially growing high tech industry that utilizes the skills and knowhow of a country.
Why didn't we do that.
The big bonus, of course, is that it directly helps with Global Warming and reduce dependency on oil and gas. Maybe it's the reducing dependency on oil and gas that Harper doesn't like. Perhaps, it's a case of 'biting the hand that feeds you'. Even Harper is reluctant to offend the oil industry. When you consider that the epi-centre of Harper and the Con's power base are the die-hard supporters in Alberta, is there any wonder why we have not done this. And, of course, Harper may be afraid that Canada will \lose its status as a oil super-power.
I thought Harper's Global Warming policy was to do whatever the US does. According to Jim Prentice, Obama and the US don't make a move regarding Global Warming policies without consulting Canada first. Looks like, perhaps this claim is 'a bit of a con'.
Oh yah, I almost forgot, Stephen Harper and the Con's have spent our billions on the private party in downtown Toronto last week. You know, the one that resulted in the downtown getting trashed and the G20 entrenching their basic philosophy: "I'll do it my way".
Who gave Harper permission to convert Toronto to his own use anyway (what was wrong with the original plan of having it in Tony Clement's riding, anyway - nothing, except, the voters would surely give him the boot in the next election when they saw the very predictable trashing) . Isn't it under Provincial jurisdiction. I guess "it's good to be the boss".
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Obama announces $2B for solar power, 3 Jul.'10, The Associated Press
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/07/03/obama-solar-power.html
"The U.S. government is handing out nearly $2 billion US for new solar plants that President Barack Obama says will create thousands of jobs and increase the use of renewable energy sources.
. . .
'We're going to keep competing aggressively to make sure the jobs and industries of the future are taking root right here in America' Obama said."
Wow, now that's a great idea, use the stimulus spending to create thousands of permanent jobs, establish a new and exponentially growing high tech industry that utilizes the skills and knowhow of a country.
Why didn't we do that.
The big bonus, of course, is that it directly helps with Global Warming and reduce dependency on oil and gas. Maybe it's the reducing dependency on oil and gas that Harper doesn't like. Perhaps, it's a case of 'biting the hand that feeds you'. Even Harper is reluctant to offend the oil industry. When you consider that the epi-centre of Harper and the Con's power base are the die-hard supporters in Alberta, is there any wonder why we have not done this. And, of course, Harper may be afraid that Canada will \lose its status as a oil super-power.
I thought Harper's Global Warming policy was to do whatever the US does. According to Jim Prentice, Obama and the US don't make a move regarding Global Warming policies without consulting Canada first. Looks like, perhaps this claim is 'a bit of a con'.
Oh yah, I almost forgot, Stephen Harper and the Con's have spent our billions on the private party in downtown Toronto last week. You know, the one that resulted in the downtown getting trashed and the G20 entrenching their basic philosophy: "I'll do it my way".
Who gave Harper permission to convert Toronto to his own use anyway (what was wrong with the original plan of having it in Tony Clement's riding, anyway - nothing, except, the voters would surely give him the boot in the next election when they saw the very predictable trashing) . Isn't it under Provincial jurisdiction. I guess "it's good to be the boss".
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
01 July, 2010
- If you lie down with Harper and the Con's, you wake up fleeced
Posted: 7/1/2010 11:55:36 AM The Globe and Mail
Application for judicial review can’t stop anti-HST petition juggernaut, Robert Matas, Globe and Mail, Jul. 01, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/application-for-judicial-review-cant-stop-anti-hst-petition-juggernaut/article1625280/
"claiming that the draft bill deals with a matter that is not within the jurisdiction of the legislature and fails to meet requirements to be clear and unambiguous "
It seems to me that if the Court rules that the draft legislation to withdraw the HST in BC is not within the jurisdiction of the BC Legislature, then it must be within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
In other words it is laying the blame of the HST squarely at the feet of Stephen Harper, where it ought to lie.
It is hard to imagine that it would be any more vague than the implementing legislation so I would be very surprised if that flew to any degree.
The HST is the doings of Harper and the Con's and designed to increases taxes but make it look like it is the Province and not Harper that is doing it.
It has been estimated to increase the value added taxes in BC and Ontario by 1.5 points, thus undoing the 2 point reduction in the GST that Harper so recklessly implemented and with regard only to partizan benefits and Canadians be damned. (Oh, and did I mention, Harper does not increase taxes.)
One need only consider the 1.6 billion payment to BC and the 4.3 billion payment to Ontario of Canadians hard earned tax dollars by Harper to implement it.
Campbell is likely not too worried about the petition since the outcome, if it is successful, is to go to Committee to decide whether to vote on it in the BC Legislature or hold a non-binding referendum. The BC Legislature passed the implementing legislation in the first place and voting down this would be expected. It would be very surprising if Gordon Campbell were agreeable to a referendum, which would be politically very unwise.
The interesting aspect of this whole matter is the possibilities of the BC Recall Legislation.
"Anti-HST activists in B.C. say now that their first petition is nearly complete, they'll launch a recall campaign targeting 24 of the governing B.C. Liberals' most vulnerable MLAs." (CBC 24 Jun.'10)
This is the big deal, given the unpopularity of the HST and especially since in some riding, apparently, more people have signed the petition than voted for their MLA. When Campbell puts the kibosh on this draft bill, voter resentment in BC will run even higher.
Having 24 of his MLA's recalled is not that unthinkable and the ensuing by-elections would likely prove disastrous to Campbell. Given that the standing right now are: 48 Liberals, 35 New Democrats, two independents, this is certainly significant.
This also probably explains Campbell's hesitation to join the Court action - if it is successful and he is associated with it, it could be even more disastrous when the HST by-elections are brought on.
It is standard strategy of political parties that are accountable only every 4 years (or so) to not mention anything during an election, then right after winning the election introduce very controversial legislation in anticipation that in 4 years people will have gotten over it. I don't think that Campbell took into his calculations Bill Vander Zalm's 700,000 signature petition (what party was former BC Premier Vander Zalm again).
So, it looks like Campbell will take the fall-out of Harper's tax increase. The only thing I can say is: "If you lie down with Con's, you wake up fleeced"
Oh, and did I mention, the benefits to businesses due to the implementation of the HST will be passed onto the consumer (sorry, I forgot, that was Mulroney's Con when he brought in the GST in the first place, not likely anyone will fall for it again, is it)
PS: Happy Canada Day, everyone!
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Application for judicial review can’t stop anti-HST petition juggernaut, Robert Matas, Globe and Mail, Jul. 01, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/application-for-judicial-review-cant-stop-anti-hst-petition-juggernaut/article1625280/
"claiming that the draft bill deals with a matter that is not within the jurisdiction of the legislature and fails to meet requirements to be clear and unambiguous "
It seems to me that if the Court rules that the draft legislation to withdraw the HST in BC is not within the jurisdiction of the BC Legislature, then it must be within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
In other words it is laying the blame of the HST squarely at the feet of Stephen Harper, where it ought to lie.
It is hard to imagine that it would be any more vague than the implementing legislation so I would be very surprised if that flew to any degree.
The HST is the doings of Harper and the Con's and designed to increases taxes but make it look like it is the Province and not Harper that is doing it.
It has been estimated to increase the value added taxes in BC and Ontario by 1.5 points, thus undoing the 2 point reduction in the GST that Harper so recklessly implemented and with regard only to partizan benefits and Canadians be damned. (Oh, and did I mention, Harper does not increase taxes.)
One need only consider the 1.6 billion payment to BC and the 4.3 billion payment to Ontario of Canadians hard earned tax dollars by Harper to implement it.
Campbell is likely not too worried about the petition since the outcome, if it is successful, is to go to Committee to decide whether to vote on it in the BC Legislature or hold a non-binding referendum. The BC Legislature passed the implementing legislation in the first place and voting down this would be expected. It would be very surprising if Gordon Campbell were agreeable to a referendum, which would be politically very unwise.
The interesting aspect of this whole matter is the possibilities of the BC Recall Legislation.
"Anti-HST activists in B.C. say now that their first petition is nearly complete, they'll launch a recall campaign targeting 24 of the governing B.C. Liberals' most vulnerable MLAs." (CBC 24 Jun.'10)
This is the big deal, given the unpopularity of the HST and especially since in some riding, apparently, more people have signed the petition than voted for their MLA. When Campbell puts the kibosh on this draft bill, voter resentment in BC will run even higher.
Having 24 of his MLA's recalled is not that unthinkable and the ensuing by-elections would likely prove disastrous to Campbell. Given that the standing right now are: 48 Liberals, 35 New Democrats, two independents, this is certainly significant.
This also probably explains Campbell's hesitation to join the Court action - if it is successful and he is associated with it, it could be even more disastrous when the HST by-elections are brought on.
It is standard strategy of political parties that are accountable only every 4 years (or so) to not mention anything during an election, then right after winning the election introduce very controversial legislation in anticipation that in 4 years people will have gotten over it. I don't think that Campbell took into his calculations Bill Vander Zalm's 700,000 signature petition (what party was former BC Premier Vander Zalm again).
So, it looks like Campbell will take the fall-out of Harper's tax increase. The only thing I can say is: "If you lie down with Con's, you wake up fleeced"
Oh, and did I mention, the benefits to businesses due to the implementation of the HST will be passed onto the consumer (sorry, I forgot, that was Mulroney's Con when he brought in the GST in the first place, not likely anyone will fall for it again, is it)
PS: Happy Canada Day, everyone!
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)