Posted: 11:59 AM on September 28, 2010
John Ivison: Why the fight over the economy is mere theatrics, John Ivison September 27, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/27/john-ivison-why-the-fight-over-the-economy-is-mere-theatrics/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
The Campaign issue will involve the economy, including taxes. But, you can betcha it will be in the light of the deficit and the Harper and Con's "Orgy of Excess" (rock on Ralph) and spending with reckless abandon.
In fact, Ignatieff and the Liberals are distinguishing themselves from Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada with regards to the economy and very significant ways.
Ignatieff: "'The priorities of this government are prisons and planes. Is this what Canadians want from their government right now in the middle of a $54-billion deficit?'
Ignatieff was referring to estimates that the government's law and order agenda will cost billions because of the need for more prisons and the government's plan to spend as much as $18 billion on buying and maintaining 65 new F-35 fighter jets.
'We think Canadians' priorities right now are child care, retirement security, post-secondary education. Basic things that are going to guarantee economic security and defence of our public health-care system,' said Ignatieff. (CBC 1 Sep.'10)
Don't be surprised if the following issues don't figure prominently in an election:
- re-establish an economy that is working for all Canadians in all regions and not simply the corporate elites, many of whom are outside Canada; and not, Canadians simply working for the bottom line of big Corporations.
- re-establish prudence in government spending and eliminate the 'Orgy of Excess' (rock on Ralph)
- re-establish democracy and the 'rule of law' in how our government operates.
- re-establish rationality, reality based, moderate and tolerant, inclusive decision making and eliminate the archaic 'rule of ideology'
- consult with all Canadians before bringing in important and significant policies to ensure that they benefit all Canadians in all economic, social, cultural circumstance.
- Communicate with Canadians in an open, transparent fashion, eliminating the obstruction, obscuration and obfuscation of information, and dismantle the 'culture of MEP's'
- re-establish the Supremacy of Parliament and our elected representatives
- re-introduce Canada in the International Community as a moderate, a peacemaker and gear down on the confrontational approach.
Now that very clearly, and significantly, isolates Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada from our mainstream politics.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
28 September, 2010
27 September, 2010
- Harper has max'd out on the Con support
the narcissism of grumpiness and the 2% solution - september 27, 2010, comments and observations by frank graves, Ottawa – September 27, 2010
http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2010/09/the-narcissism-of-grumpiness-and-the-2-solution-september-27-2010/#comment-10357
I can't see Harper and the Con's calling an election on the Long Gun Registry (GR). For one thing, the voting public are already constellated, and have been for a long, long time, on the issue and not likely to shift - and it simply does not produce the numbers for a majority.
There are 3 groups:
- those that will vote Con because of their stance on the GR;
- those that will vote against the Con's for the same reason;
and,
- all the other that will vote based on things (like the deficit, Harper spending, economy)
These groups have already been very well defined and not likely to change unless Harper and the Con's actually do abolish the GR, then the:
- 2nd group will not likely change since they will be even more against Harper.
- 3rd won't change.
- 1st group may very well lose their need to support Harper and the Con's so strongly, or at all.
Further, Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and the Conservative Party of Canada seem to be going both ways on what the election issue will be. When it suites them, it is the Long Gun Registry, and when it suites them it is the economy.
The Campaign issue will involve the economy, including taxes. But, you can betcha it will be in the light of the deficit and the Harper and Con's "Orgy of Excess" (rock on Ralph) and spending with reckless abandon. Harper and the Con's will tie in the issue of a coalition government with "Ignatieff-NDP-Bloc Québécois" but that too will be in terms of the economy - as indicated by the Flaherty speech last week.
(cicblog.com/comments.html, 22 Sep.'10)
Two polls were released amid the heat of the vote last week. Angus Reid's poll found 46 per cent of Canadians wanted the registry gone and 40 per cent wanted it to stay. The rest weren't sure what they wanted.
Harris Decima's poll found 48 per cent of Canadians wanted to keep it compared to 38 per cent who wanted to scrap it.
(Winnipeg Free Press, 27 Sep)
However, compare this to the polls on support generally voter intention that have the Con at around 33%, Lib's around 29% , NDP 16.6%, Green 10.7%, Block 8.9% (Ekos 16 Sep.'10)
So, if you take the average between the two pols on the GR, just for argument's sake, you get 42% wanting it scrapped. However, voter intention for the Con's is 33%. There are 9% points out there that want it scrapped but definitely vote for other reasons, since they vote against Harper. It is safe to say that since the 33% represents the die-hard core of right wing extremists epi-centred in Alberta that they, to a man, - sorry person - want the gun registry gone. But they all vote Con pretty much no matter what.
That is, unless Harper is seen to be compromising true Con ideology, or benefiting other demographics or regions of Canada (ahh ahh ahh Ch...Ontario/Quebec .. ooo - sorry sneezed), especially at their expense. Which could explain why Harper doesn't go after the 2% solution.
Quite simply, in order to so do, he would have to compromise true Con ideology and favour other demographics and they don't like that where they come from - in other words, perhaps Harper risks losing a point for each gained. The indications are that at least 5 of those 33 points are hard liners ready to dump Harper for his 'moderation' and that's a lot. More important or just as important is they represent a significant source of funding for the Party, which it is suggested new converts from Ontario/Quebec wouldn't. In other owrds, Harper has max'd out on the Con support.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2010/09/the-narcissism-of-grumpiness-and-the-2-solution-september-27-2010/#comment-10357
I can't see Harper and the Con's calling an election on the Long Gun Registry (GR). For one thing, the voting public are already constellated, and have been for a long, long time, on the issue and not likely to shift - and it simply does not produce the numbers for a majority.
There are 3 groups:
- those that will vote Con because of their stance on the GR;
- those that will vote against the Con's for the same reason;
and,
- all the other that will vote based on things (like the deficit, Harper spending, economy)
These groups have already been very well defined and not likely to change unless Harper and the Con's actually do abolish the GR, then the:
- 2nd group will not likely change since they will be even more against Harper.
- 3rd won't change.
- 1st group may very well lose their need to support Harper and the Con's so strongly, or at all.
Further, Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and the Conservative Party of Canada seem to be going both ways on what the election issue will be. When it suites them, it is the Long Gun Registry, and when it suites them it is the economy.
The Campaign issue will involve the economy, including taxes. But, you can betcha it will be in the light of the deficit and the Harper and Con's "Orgy of Excess" (rock on Ralph) and spending with reckless abandon. Harper and the Con's will tie in the issue of a coalition government with "Ignatieff-NDP-Bloc Québécois" but that too will be in terms of the economy - as indicated by the Flaherty speech last week.
(cicblog.com/comments.html, 22 Sep.'10)
Two polls were released amid the heat of the vote last week. Angus Reid's poll found 46 per cent of Canadians wanted the registry gone and 40 per cent wanted it to stay. The rest weren't sure what they wanted.
Harris Decima's poll found 48 per cent of Canadians wanted to keep it compared to 38 per cent who wanted to scrap it.
(Winnipeg Free Press, 27 Sep)
However, compare this to the polls on support generally voter intention that have the Con at around 33%, Lib's around 29% , NDP 16.6%, Green 10.7%, Block 8.9% (Ekos 16 Sep.'10)
So, if you take the average between the two pols on the GR, just for argument's sake, you get 42% wanting it scrapped. However, voter intention for the Con's is 33%. There are 9% points out there that want it scrapped but definitely vote for other reasons, since they vote against Harper. It is safe to say that since the 33% represents the die-hard core of right wing extremists epi-centred in Alberta that they, to a man, - sorry person - want the gun registry gone. But they all vote Con pretty much no matter what.
That is, unless Harper is seen to be compromising true Con ideology, or benefiting other demographics or regions of Canada (ahh ahh ahh Ch...Ontario/Quebec .. ooo - sorry sneezed), especially at their expense. Which could explain why Harper doesn't go after the 2% solution.
Quite simply, in order to so do, he would have to compromise true Con ideology and favour other demographics and they don't like that where they come from - in other words, perhaps Harper risks losing a point for each gained. The indications are that at least 5 of those 33 points are hard liners ready to dump Harper for his 'moderation' and that's a lot. More important or just as important is they represent a significant source of funding for the Party, which it is suggested new converts from Ontario/Quebec wouldn't. In other owrds, Harper has max'd out on the Con support.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
26 September, 2010
- "Harper Orgy of Excess" - You've Got that 'Right' - Rock On Ralph!
Submitted: 8:34 am, 26 Sep.'10 CBC News
G8/G20 spending an 'orgy of excess': Liberals, CBC News, September 24, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/09/24/g20-g20-spending-liberals.html Tab 221
Vic Toews on CBC:
"Look we are dealing with about a billion dollars cost. I consider every penny spent to be an important expenditure …
But look, lets focus on the big picture . . . We followed the advice of the security experts . . . I am quite confident we made the right decisions given the time context that we were operating under. . . .
Obviously, when I was briefed on all of these matters when I came into office I didn't go through the billion dollars expenditure line by line . . ."
But what we have done and what I consider priority was to ensure that you get the 14000 bill for glow sticks and call upon the government then and the organizers to justify why those in fact were used."
Sounds like Harper, Toews and the Cons are trying to shift the blame for the orgy of excess on the organizers and that they did not have enough time to ensure that the money was well spent.
Does anyone recall Stephen Harper or any of the Con's accepting responsibility for any of their 'Cons' that the opposition and media has shone their light upon, and there have been many.
Well, Mr. Harper, Mr. Toews
"That sir, if I may say respectfully, that is not good enough for Canadians."
"You had an option sir to say 'no' and you chose to say 'yes'".
(Mulroney, '84)
Mr. Harper, you chose to say "yes" to holding the G8-20 in the first place not because it benefits Canadians, but as one big photo op for Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada.
Mr. Harper, sir, if I may say respectfully, you could have said "no"
Mr. Harper, you chose to say "yes" to transferring the G20 from Tony Clement's riding to downtown Toronto (and after a goodly % of the money spent was spent in Minister Clement's riding), knowing that the downtown area of Toronto would in all likelihood be trashed. Of course, therein lies the answer - Toronto doesn't elect Con's and what would the chances of Clement being re-elected if they did to Muskoka what they did to Toronto.
Mr. Harper, sir, if I may say respectfully, you could have said "no"
As far as transparency is concerned:
Waiting for the Opposition to force it out of the Harper government; wait until the Spring for the Auditor general's report, is not transparency.
Mr. Harper, that sir, is not good enough for Canadians.
Let Mr. Harper, Mr. Toews promise to all Canadians that all the information on all the spending will be in front of all Canadians prior to the next election.
They can throw in the '09 RCMP Gun Registry Report, Afghan Detainee documents, proper accounting of the over 100 million in advertizing by the Harper government, and, of course, explain just exactly why we need to spend 16 billion on 65 F35's.
And let Harper, Toews and all the Con's do these things not in a political but an informed fashion.
Just think:
If Harper were not procuring these Strike Force jets, he may not be required to increase the EI premiums of Canadian workers
and
If Harper did not reduce the Corporate taxes, which are already lower than the US; if Harper were to eliminated the 1.4 billion subsidies to the oil and gas industry; if Harper had not reduvced the GST; and, there's more, of course.
then,
We might even be better able to afford the "Harper Orgy of Excess" - Now That's Calling an Apple An Apple, you've got that 'Right' MR. Goodale, Rock On Ralph.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
G8/G20 spending an 'orgy of excess': Liberals, CBC News, September 24, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/09/24/g20-g20-spending-liberals.html Tab 221
Vic Toews on CBC:
"Look we are dealing with about a billion dollars cost. I consider every penny spent to be an important expenditure …
But look, lets focus on the big picture . . . We followed the advice of the security experts . . . I am quite confident we made the right decisions given the time context that we were operating under. . . .
Obviously, when I was briefed on all of these matters when I came into office I didn't go through the billion dollars expenditure line by line . . ."
But what we have done and what I consider priority was to ensure that you get the 14000 bill for glow sticks and call upon the government then and the organizers to justify why those in fact were used."
Sounds like Harper, Toews and the Cons are trying to shift the blame for the orgy of excess on the organizers and that they did not have enough time to ensure that the money was well spent.
Does anyone recall Stephen Harper or any of the Con's accepting responsibility for any of their 'Cons' that the opposition and media has shone their light upon, and there have been many.
Well, Mr. Harper, Mr. Toews
"That sir, if I may say respectfully, that is not good enough for Canadians."
"You had an option sir to say 'no' and you chose to say 'yes'".
(Mulroney, '84)
Mr. Harper, you chose to say "yes" to holding the G8-20 in the first place not because it benefits Canadians, but as one big photo op for Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada.
Mr. Harper, sir, if I may say respectfully, you could have said "no"
Mr. Harper, you chose to say "yes" to transferring the G20 from Tony Clement's riding to downtown Toronto (and after a goodly % of the money spent was spent in Minister Clement's riding), knowing that the downtown area of Toronto would in all likelihood be trashed. Of course, therein lies the answer - Toronto doesn't elect Con's and what would the chances of Clement being re-elected if they did to Muskoka what they did to Toronto.
Mr. Harper, sir, if I may say respectfully, you could have said "no"
As far as transparency is concerned:
Waiting for the Opposition to force it out of the Harper government; wait until the Spring for the Auditor general's report, is not transparency.
Mr. Harper, that sir, is not good enough for Canadians.
Let Mr. Harper, Mr. Toews promise to all Canadians that all the information on all the spending will be in front of all Canadians prior to the next election.
They can throw in the '09 RCMP Gun Registry Report, Afghan Detainee documents, proper accounting of the over 100 million in advertizing by the Harper government, and, of course, explain just exactly why we need to spend 16 billion on 65 F35's.
And let Harper, Toews and all the Con's do these things not in a political but an informed fashion.
Just think:
If Harper were not procuring these Strike Force jets, he may not be required to increase the EI premiums of Canadian workers
and
If Harper did not reduce the Corporate taxes, which are already lower than the US; if Harper were to eliminated the 1.4 billion subsidies to the oil and gas industry; if Harper had not reduvced the GST; and, there's more, of course.
then,
We might even be better able to afford the "Harper Orgy of Excess" - Now That's Calling an Apple An Apple, you've got that 'Right' MR. Goodale, Rock On Ralph.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
23 September, 2010
- Harper, How about Some Rationality - Not Fear Mongering, Logic - Not Mud Slinging, Transparency - not Partizanship, Truth - Not Hype
Submitted: 7:32 PDT, 23 Sep.'10
Liberals won't let Flaherty's rhetorical excesses provoke an election, Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press, 22/09/2010
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/liberals-wont-take-tory-bait-wont-let-flahertys-
rhetorical-excesses-provoke-an-election--103548524.html
Harper, Flaherty and the Con's, engaging in "politics of fear, division, envy and resentment at a time when Canadians need to hear a message of hope and unity."
Harper "making up Liberal policy".
Flaherty engaging in "'bottom-feeder' brand of partisanship
Iggie, Goodale, when you're right your right (morally that is).
Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada have no concern about what the truth is. There are many, many examples.
Just keep in mind Tom Flanagan, a former Harper adviser, said about the Harper attack ads on Ignatieff “It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible"
Michael Ignatieff, Ralph Goodale must be very careful not to allow Harper to define Iggie and the Liberal policies. One need only recall what happened to Dion.
When it suites them, Harper and the Con's go around saying that the Liberals have no policies. Then, when it suites them, they go round telling everyone what the Liberal policies are. Sounds pretty disingenuous to me.
As far as the Harper - Flaherty GST cuts:
It seems just about any Economist, who wants to by taken seriously that is, thinks it was the wrong thing to do.
Even Harper's advisor at the time, Ian Brodie, has admitted as much. “Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”;
Just think, $12 billion a years taken out of the Federal coffers - it could have paid for the 16 billion plus, price tag for 65 F16's, in just a couple years, or, better, seriously reduce the deficit or help finance important and needed social programs.
Corporate taxes - Ignatieff would not be increasing corporate taxes he would simply freeze them, for the time being. There is a difference, especially when you have such large deficits and existing low corporate taxes (. This would prevent the Federal coffers from losing another $5 - 6 billion a year.
[Ignatieff] "We believe passionately in competitive corporate tax rates. We're telling you though, we can't afford them now. There's just too much we have to do to get our fiscal house in order and make the investments that will make us a productive society." (CBC)
"Harper . . . , like Flaherty, he accused "tax-and-spend" Liberals of proposing "deep and high" increases to the GST, corporate and personal taxes, and even taxes on iPods."
Perhaps, Harper, Flaherty might explain, in rational - not fear mongering, logical - not mud-slinging, and plane - not partizan, fashion, substantiated by facts - not slanders, and reality - not hype, just exactly what they are basing these allegation on. That would surely be interesting reading. But, don't hold your breath on this.
In fact, Harper reducing the GST by 2 points was simply the wrong thing to do. What happened to the best interest of all Canadians. Shame on you Mr. Harper.
In fact, Corporate taxes - Ignatieff stated he not be increasing corporate taxes he would simply freeze them, for the time being, because of the huge deficits. That's pretty sound financial policy to me. What's your problem with that, Mr. Flaherty.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Liberals won't let Flaherty's rhetorical excesses provoke an election, Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press, 22/09/2010
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/liberals-wont-take-tory-bait-wont-let-flahertys-
rhetorical-excesses-provoke-an-election--103548524.html
Harper, Flaherty and the Con's, engaging in "politics of fear, division, envy and resentment at a time when Canadians need to hear a message of hope and unity."
Harper "making up Liberal policy".
Flaherty engaging in "'bottom-feeder' brand of partisanship
Iggie, Goodale, when you're right your right (morally that is).
Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada have no concern about what the truth is. There are many, many examples.
Just keep in mind Tom Flanagan, a former Harper adviser, said about the Harper attack ads on Ignatieff “It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible"
Michael Ignatieff, Ralph Goodale must be very careful not to allow Harper to define Iggie and the Liberal policies. One need only recall what happened to Dion.
When it suites them, Harper and the Con's go around saying that the Liberals have no policies. Then, when it suites them, they go round telling everyone what the Liberal policies are. Sounds pretty disingenuous to me.
As far as the Harper - Flaherty GST cuts:
It seems just about any Economist, who wants to by taken seriously that is, thinks it was the wrong thing to do.
Even Harper's advisor at the time, Ian Brodie, has admitted as much. “Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked … It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.”;
Just think, $12 billion a years taken out of the Federal coffers - it could have paid for the 16 billion plus, price tag for 65 F16's, in just a couple years, or, better, seriously reduce the deficit or help finance important and needed social programs.
Corporate taxes - Ignatieff would not be increasing corporate taxes he would simply freeze them, for the time being. There is a difference, especially when you have such large deficits and existing low corporate taxes (. This would prevent the Federal coffers from losing another $5 - 6 billion a year.
[Ignatieff] "We believe passionately in competitive corporate tax rates. We're telling you though, we can't afford them now. There's just too much we have to do to get our fiscal house in order and make the investments that will make us a productive society." (CBC)
"Harper . . . , like Flaherty, he accused "tax-and-spend" Liberals of proposing "deep and high" increases to the GST, corporate and personal taxes, and even taxes on iPods."
Perhaps, Harper, Flaherty might explain, in rational - not fear mongering, logical - not mud-slinging, and plane - not partizan, fashion, substantiated by facts - not slanders, and reality - not hype, just exactly what they are basing these allegation on. That would surely be interesting reading. But, don't hold your breath on this.
In fact, Harper reducing the GST by 2 points was simply the wrong thing to do. What happened to the best interest of all Canadians. Shame on you Mr. Harper.
In fact, Corporate taxes - Ignatieff stated he not be increasing corporate taxes he would simply freeze them, for the time being, because of the huge deficits. That's pretty sound financial policy to me. What's your problem with that, Mr. Flaherty.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
22 September, 2010
- Harper, Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star, How I Wonder What You Are . . . and Who You're Going to Vote For
Posted: 9/22/2010 10:21:01 AM The Globe and Mail
Outdrawn in the gun fight, Tories train sights on election, Globe and Mail, Sep. 22, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/outdrawn-in-the-gun-fight-tories-train-sights-on-election/article1717644/ Tab 40
I can't see Harper and the Con's calling an election on the Gun Registry (GR). For one thing, the voting public are already constellated, and have been for a long, long time, on the issue and not likely to shift - and it simply does not produce the numbers for a majority.
There are 3 groups:
- those that will vote Con because of their stance on the GR;
- those that will vote against the Con's for the same reason;
and,
- all the other that will vote based on things (like the deficit, Harper spending, economy)
These groups have already been very well defined and not likely to change unless Harper and the Con's actually do abolish the GR, then the:
- 2nd group will not likely change since they will be even more against Harper.
- 3rd won't change.
- 1st group may very well lose their need to support Harper and the Con's so strongly, or at all.
Further, Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and the Conservative Party of Canada seem to be going both ways on what the election issue will be. When it suites them, it is the Long Gun Registry, and when it suites them it is the economy.
The Campaign issue will involve the economy. But, you can betcha it will be in the light of the deficit and the Harper and Con's spending with reckless abandon.
If Harper thought, in the least, that it could be the basis for obtaining more seats or even a majority then it seems Harper would not have had a private members bill introduced. He would have had the government introduce it and say it is a question of confidence (yah, like he has ever done that before).
If Harper really wanted to get rid of the GR he would have had the dismantling provisions introduced in the Budget implementation bill - (yah, like he has ever done that before).
Stephen Harper who only last week said his government “is not going to rest until that long gun registry is abolished.”
The key here is not "abolish". It is "rest".
Quite simply Harper does not want to put the GR to rest, he wants to keep it going.
Harper uses the GR as a 'call-to-arms' of the party faithful (little pun) and fund raising. He has made it his and the Con's "Raison D'etre".
When it's gone, what then, dissolve the Con Party.
Perhaps all those people who support the Con's for this reason only will start to take a hard look at Harper and the Con's and decide that they and Canada can do better, much better.
Actually abolishing the RG is a losing strategy for Harper.
Keith Martin has served his riding very well over the years, it is hard to see them getting much better, especially from a 'newbe'. It is hard to see him losing because of his stance on the GR.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Outdrawn in the gun fight, Tories train sights on election, Globe and Mail, Sep. 22, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/outdrawn-in-the-gun-fight-tories-train-sights-on-election/article1717644/ Tab 40
I can't see Harper and the Con's calling an election on the Gun Registry (GR). For one thing, the voting public are already constellated, and have been for a long, long time, on the issue and not likely to shift - and it simply does not produce the numbers for a majority.
There are 3 groups:
- those that will vote Con because of their stance on the GR;
- those that will vote against the Con's for the same reason;
and,
- all the other that will vote based on things (like the deficit, Harper spending, economy)
These groups have already been very well defined and not likely to change unless Harper and the Con's actually do abolish the GR, then the:
- 2nd group will not likely change since they will be even more against Harper.
- 3rd won't change.
- 1st group may very well lose their need to support Harper and the Con's so strongly, or at all.
Further, Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and the Conservative Party of Canada seem to be going both ways on what the election issue will be. When it suites them, it is the Long Gun Registry, and when it suites them it is the economy.
The Campaign issue will involve the economy. But, you can betcha it will be in the light of the deficit and the Harper and Con's spending with reckless abandon.
If Harper thought, in the least, that it could be the basis for obtaining more seats or even a majority then it seems Harper would not have had a private members bill introduced. He would have had the government introduce it and say it is a question of confidence (yah, like he has ever done that before).
If Harper really wanted to get rid of the GR he would have had the dismantling provisions introduced in the Budget implementation bill - (yah, like he has ever done that before).
Stephen Harper who only last week said his government “is not going to rest until that long gun registry is abolished.”
The key here is not "abolish". It is "rest".
Quite simply Harper does not want to put the GR to rest, he wants to keep it going.
Harper uses the GR as a 'call-to-arms' of the party faithful (little pun) and fund raising. He has made it his and the Con's "Raison D'etre".
When it's gone, what then, dissolve the Con Party.
Perhaps all those people who support the Con's for this reason only will start to take a hard look at Harper and the Con's and decide that they and Canada can do better, much better.
Actually abolishing the RG is a losing strategy for Harper.
Keith Martin has served his riding very well over the years, it is hard to see them getting much better, especially from a 'newbe'. It is hard to see him losing because of his stance on the GR.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
21 September, 2010
- Harper Is Not Going To Rest Until Canada is Torn Asunder
Posted: 9/21/2010 12:55:16 PM the Globe and Mail
"The Conservative private-member's bill to scrap the long-gun registry faces a vote in the House of Commons on Sept. 22", Jonathan Hayward/The Canadian Press, Gloeb and Mail, 21 Sep.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservatives-blitz-key-ridings-in-last-ditch-bid-to-scrap-gun-registry/article1715688/Conservatives blitz key ridings in last-ditch bid to scrap gun registry Tab 45
The article didn't mention who is paying for all these ads. I hope it isn't the good tax payers of Canada - yah, like Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada would ever use tax money to promote him and their party.
So, has the RCMP '09 Gun Registry Report been released?
Does having the media leak it count.
"Harper initially supported long-gun registry".
What, am I reading this right (morally that is).
Stephen Harper our PM and leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, who, only yesterday stood up in the House of Commons and said Conservative MPs “can be very proud” that they tell their constituents “exactly” what “they are prepared to do” in Ottawa.
[Perhaps, Harper could tell all Canadians exactly what he is prepared to do]
“I would urge the leader of the NDP and the members of the NDP to implement the same level of integrity,” the Prime Minister said.
[that's a scary thought]
Stephen Harper who only last week said his government “is not going to rest until that long gun registry is abolished.”
[then, why the private member's Bill. Can't the Harper government introduce a Bill. They could even consider it a non-confidence vote - can you do that with a Private Member's Bill].
(Toronto Star).
ON 8/31/2010 12:12:05 PM The Globe and Mail, "Jack Layton - Here's a Good Plan" I posted:
It seems to me more rational to ensure that this Private Member's Bill fails.
If for no other reason than:
- Harper should be up front about it and have the Con government introduce the Bill;
- the failure to release the '08 Gun Registry Report last November until just after the vote; and,
- the failure, so far, of releasing the '09 Gun Registry Report, in which RCMP evaluation apparently states that:
"The report concludes the registry prepares officers for urgent calls, helps them trace weapons found at crime scenes and assists in keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.
“It ensures police are better equipped to respond to, for example, a situation of domestic violence, assess potential safety risks and confirm the possible presence of firearms and their legal status,” the evaluation says." (Globe and Mail)
With a cost of between $2 - $4 million a year, apparently. (The $1billion Harper spentt, and in one shot, on the Con Photo Op in Toronto in Aug. would finance the registry for 250 years)
- I can understand why Harper might not want that in front of the Canadian people prior to the vote.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
"The Conservative private-member's bill to scrap the long-gun registry faces a vote in the House of Commons on Sept. 22", Jonathan Hayward/The Canadian Press, Gloeb and Mail, 21 Sep.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservatives-blitz-key-ridings-in-last-ditch-bid-to-scrap-gun-registry/article1715688/Conservatives blitz key ridings in last-ditch bid to scrap gun registry Tab 45
The article didn't mention who is paying for all these ads. I hope it isn't the good tax payers of Canada - yah, like Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada would ever use tax money to promote him and their party.
So, has the RCMP '09 Gun Registry Report been released?
Does having the media leak it count.
"Harper initially supported long-gun registry".
What, am I reading this right (morally that is).
Stephen Harper our PM and leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, who, only yesterday stood up in the House of Commons and said Conservative MPs “can be very proud” that they tell their constituents “exactly” what “they are prepared to do” in Ottawa.
[Perhaps, Harper could tell all Canadians exactly what he is prepared to do]
“I would urge the leader of the NDP and the members of the NDP to implement the same level of integrity,” the Prime Minister said.
[that's a scary thought]
Stephen Harper who only last week said his government “is not going to rest until that long gun registry is abolished.”
[then, why the private member's Bill. Can't the Harper government introduce a Bill. They could even consider it a non-confidence vote - can you do that with a Private Member's Bill].
(Toronto Star).
ON 8/31/2010 12:12:05 PM The Globe and Mail, "Jack Layton - Here's a Good Plan" I posted:
It seems to me more rational to ensure that this Private Member's Bill fails.
If for no other reason than:
- Harper should be up front about it and have the Con government introduce the Bill;
- the failure to release the '08 Gun Registry Report last November until just after the vote; and,
- the failure, so far, of releasing the '09 Gun Registry Report, in which RCMP evaluation apparently states that:
"The report concludes the registry prepares officers for urgent calls, helps them trace weapons found at crime scenes and assists in keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.
“It ensures police are better equipped to respond to, for example, a situation of domestic violence, assess potential safety risks and confirm the possible presence of firearms and their legal status,” the evaluation says." (Globe and Mail)
With a cost of between $2 - $4 million a year, apparently. (The $1billion Harper spentt, and in one shot, on the Con Photo Op in Toronto in Aug. would finance the registry for 250 years)
- I can understand why Harper might not want that in front of the Canadian people prior to the vote.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
- Harper - A Whole-Lot-A Deemin' Goin' On.
Posted: 9/21/2010 10:59:04 AM the Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservatives-spent-record-130-million-on-advertising-as-deficit-soared/article1715738/
Conservatives spent record $130-million on advertising as deficit soared
“Advertising costs for the Economic Action Plan were one-time only costs in the context of the global economic crisis, during which the [government of Canada] deemed it important to communicate with Canadians about the programs and services available to them to counter tough economic times,” the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada said in a statement.
" the government of Canada deemed it important" - therein lies the crux.
The government also deemed it important to spend a billion, and counting, on the G8-G20.
It also deems it important to spend 16 billion on 65 F35's.
It also deems it important to spend 10 of billions of dollars on increased prison facilities.
It also deemed it important to take two points off the GST.
It also deems it important to reduce corporate taxes (from 18 to 15 %).
It also deems it important to maintain the tax subsidies for the Oil Sands companies.
It also deems it important to get rid of the Long Form Registry.
It also deems it important to get rid of the Long Gun registry (what's with all the 'long's - is that some kind of Freudian thing).
It also deemed it important to prorogue Parliament last years - oh, I almost forgot, did I mention, they deemed it even more important to prorogue it the year before.
Does anyone see a trend developing here.
There seems to be a whole-lot-a what Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada 'deem' is best and what is actually best for the good people of Canada as a whole plays no part.
Harper is no longer even trying to say that "the people of Canada" want this, or that. Now it is "the government of Canada deems it important"
Given that Harper and the Cons received only approx 36% of the vote and a minority of seats. And, given that they now are enjoying about 33% support, with a core of die-hard right wing extremists epi-centred in Alberta that are keeping Harper in power.
As long as these Harper polices do not consolidate the opposition then Harper and the Conservative party can take this position and 'Canada be dam[redacted]d'.
The solution is all Canadians stand up, be counted, and in unison say:
"We deem an election important, right now".
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservatives-spent-record-130-million-on-advertising-as-deficit-soared/article1715738/
Conservatives spent record $130-million on advertising as deficit soared
“Advertising costs for the Economic Action Plan were one-time only costs in the context of the global economic crisis, during which the [government of Canada] deemed it important to communicate with Canadians about the programs and services available to them to counter tough economic times,” the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada said in a statement.
" the government of Canada deemed it important" - therein lies the crux.
The government also deemed it important to spend a billion, and counting, on the G8-G20.
It also deems it important to spend 16 billion on 65 F35's.
It also deems it important to spend 10 of billions of dollars on increased prison facilities.
It also deemed it important to take two points off the GST.
It also deems it important to reduce corporate taxes (from 18 to 15 %).
It also deems it important to maintain the tax subsidies for the Oil Sands companies.
It also deems it important to get rid of the Long Form Registry.
It also deems it important to get rid of the Long Gun registry (what's with all the 'long's - is that some kind of Freudian thing).
It also deemed it important to prorogue Parliament last years - oh, I almost forgot, did I mention, they deemed it even more important to prorogue it the year before.
Does anyone see a trend developing here.
There seems to be a whole-lot-a what Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada 'deem' is best and what is actually best for the good people of Canada as a whole plays no part.
Harper is no longer even trying to say that "the people of Canada" want this, or that. Now it is "the government of Canada deems it important"
Given that Harper and the Cons received only approx 36% of the vote and a minority of seats. And, given that they now are enjoying about 33% support, with a core of die-hard right wing extremists epi-centred in Alberta that are keeping Harper in power.
As long as these Harper polices do not consolidate the opposition then Harper and the Conservative party can take this position and 'Canada be dam[redacted]d'.
The solution is all Canadians stand up, be counted, and in unison say:
"We deem an election important, right now".
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
19 September, 2010
- Harplet - Did he release or not release – that is the question
9/19/2010 12:21:49 PM
Tories turn Google against rural Mps in gun-registry feud, Jane Taber, September 17, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-turn-google-against-rural-mps-in-gun-registry-feud/article1711463/?cid=art-rail-politics Tab 129
follow-up from: "Harplet, 'To release or not to release – that is the question:', I posted to cicblog, On 23 Aug.
The article didn't mention who is paying for all these ads. I hope it isn't the good tax payers of Canada - yah, like Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada would ever use tax money to promote him and their party.
So, has the Report been released?
Does having the media leak it count.
'09 Gun Registry Report, in which RCMP evaluation apparently states that:
"The report concludes the registry prepares officers for urgent calls, helps them trace weapons found at crime scenes and assists in keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.
“It ensures police are better equipped to respond to, for example, a situation of domestic violence, assess potential safety risks and confirm the possible presence of firearms and their legal status,” the evaluation says." (Globe and Mail)
With a cost of between $2 - $4 million a year, apparently. (The $1billion Harper spentt, and in one shot, on the Con Photo Op in Toronto in Aug. would finance the registry for 250 years)
On 23 Aug. I posted to cicblog:
- Harplet, "To release or not to release – that is the question:"
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous criticisms
Or to take arms against a sea of opposition
And, by suppressing the Report, end it.
[take-off from Shakespeare's Hamlet]
It seems to me the litmus test on this one is:
Does this mean that the 'major Report' on the Gun Registry that Cheliak was going to release before the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police at its annual general meeting in Edmonton, will still be released at the same time, or at least well before the 22 September vote on the private member's gun registry vote.
This is, as opposed to say, 2 days after the vote, which, it seems, as I recall, happened in the last Report and vote on the same Bill - vis.: "The email trail shows the 2008 firearms report was received on Sept. 18, [2009] but 'apparently reviewed by the office of the liaison to the minister for some time. The minister's office is now saying that because they did not receive the report until Oct. 9, they have until Nov. 6 to table it' [2 days after the vote, 4 Nov.'09].
The 2008 report was a largely positive review of the gun control program, and confirmed growing police use of the gun registry database. The 2009 numbers are even more pronounced. " (Toronto Star)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Tories turn Google against rural Mps in gun-registry feud, Jane Taber, September 17, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-turn-google-against-rural-mps-in-gun-registry-feud/article1711463/?cid=art-rail-politics Tab 129
follow-up from: "Harplet, 'To release or not to release – that is the question:', I posted to cicblog, On 23 Aug.
The article didn't mention who is paying for all these ads. I hope it isn't the good tax payers of Canada - yah, like Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada would ever use tax money to promote him and their party.
So, has the Report been released?
Does having the media leak it count.
'09 Gun Registry Report, in which RCMP evaluation apparently states that:
"The report concludes the registry prepares officers for urgent calls, helps them trace weapons found at crime scenes and assists in keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.
“It ensures police are better equipped to respond to, for example, a situation of domestic violence, assess potential safety risks and confirm the possible presence of firearms and their legal status,” the evaluation says." (Globe and Mail)
With a cost of between $2 - $4 million a year, apparently. (The $1billion Harper spentt, and in one shot, on the Con Photo Op in Toronto in Aug. would finance the registry for 250 years)
On 23 Aug. I posted to cicblog:
- Harplet, "To release or not to release – that is the question:"
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous criticisms
Or to take arms against a sea of opposition
And, by suppressing the Report, end it.
[take-off from Shakespeare's Hamlet]
It seems to me the litmus test on this one is:
Does this mean that the 'major Report' on the Gun Registry that Cheliak was going to release before the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police at its annual general meeting in Edmonton, will still be released at the same time, or at least well before the 22 September vote on the private member's gun registry vote.
This is, as opposed to say, 2 days after the vote, which, it seems, as I recall, happened in the last Report and vote on the same Bill - vis.: "The email trail shows the 2008 firearms report was received on Sept. 18, [2009] but 'apparently reviewed by the office of the liaison to the minister for some time. The minister's office is now saying that because they did not receive the report until Oct. 9, they have until Nov. 6 to table it' [2 days after the vote, 4 Nov.'09].
The 2008 report was a largely positive review of the gun control program, and confirmed growing police use of the gun registry database. The 2009 numbers are even more pronounced. " (Toronto Star)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
18 September, 2010
- Mr. Harper, Surprise, Surprise, Canada is Actually a Democracy
Posted: wlloydm 10:47 AM on September 18, 2010 National Post
‘Orwellian’ bureaucrats shielding PM from media surprises: documents, Adrian Lam/Postmedia News, 16 Sep.'10, National Post
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Orwellian+bureaucrats+shielding+from+surprises+documents/3535989/story.html
We all have to ask ourselves just exactly why it is that Harper and the Cons are so concerned about 'surprises'. What kind of people engaging in what kind of activities are so concerned.
It may be an explanation of the large budget increases at the PMO's office, and after all who's going to write those MAP's - sure not Harper himself, not all of them.
Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria, has revealed a very fundamental point - ah, leave it to those scientists to look at truth and reality, on a rational basis.
“It’s Orwellian, . . . The sad reality is that these guys in Ottawa think federal scientists work for them . . . They don’t, they work for the people of Canada.”
Sound familiar, how about the way that Harper and the Con's have been spending 10 of millions of our hard earned tax dollars on media hype to have the good people of Canada identify our Stimulus spending with Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada. How about the billion and counting for the Con photo op in downtown Toronto in August, which caused the sacking of the Toronto core.
Mr Weaver is right (morally that is).
It is not Michael Ignatieff that suffers, it is not the Liberal Party of Canada, it is not even the NDP.
It is the people of Canada, all of us, together, that suffer and are so abused.
And the cold, hard reality also is:
Unless all Canadians are willing to stand up, be counted, and in unison say "I want my Canada back" Harper can do all these thing with impunity.
As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and does, take the position 'Canadians be dam[redacted]d'.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
‘Orwellian’ bureaucrats shielding PM from media surprises: documents, Adrian Lam/Postmedia News, 16 Sep.'10, National Post
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Orwellian+bureaucrats+shielding+from+surprises+documents/3535989/story.html
We all have to ask ourselves just exactly why it is that Harper and the Cons are so concerned about 'surprises'. What kind of people engaging in what kind of activities are so concerned.
It may be an explanation of the large budget increases at the PMO's office, and after all who's going to write those MAP's - sure not Harper himself, not all of them.
Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria, has revealed a very fundamental point - ah, leave it to those scientists to look at truth and reality, on a rational basis.
“It’s Orwellian, . . . The sad reality is that these guys in Ottawa think federal scientists work for them . . . They don’t, they work for the people of Canada.”
Sound familiar, how about the way that Harper and the Con's have been spending 10 of millions of our hard earned tax dollars on media hype to have the good people of Canada identify our Stimulus spending with Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada. How about the billion and counting for the Con photo op in downtown Toronto in August, which caused the sacking of the Toronto core.
Mr Weaver is right (morally that is).
It is not Michael Ignatieff that suffers, it is not the Liberal Party of Canada, it is not even the NDP.
It is the people of Canada, all of us, together, that suffer and are so abused.
And the cold, hard reality also is:
Unless all Canadians are willing to stand up, be counted, and in unison say "I want my Canada back" Harper can do all these thing with impunity.
As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and does, take the position 'Canadians be dam[redacted]d'.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
17 September, 2010
- I agree with Sheila Copps.
How to fix QP? It’s simple, Norman Spector
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/spector-vision/how-to-fix-qp-its-simple/article1711228/
In that Question Period is a very important and useful aspect of our Parliamentary System. Having camera's is also very important.
Getting rid of the camera's would give the Opposition one less ability to make the government accountable and thus enhance Canadian democracy. On the other hand, given the extent to which Stephen Harper and the Cons have curtailed our democratic process already and suppressed accountability, getting rid of the cameras seems like small potatoes, indeed.
It is the people of Canada that should stand up, be counted and say in no uncertain terms of what behavior and by whom they do not approve.
The media should shine their light in clear, unequivocal and glaring fashion at behavior that is unbecoming a representative of the people of this great and proud nation.
If someone is acting like a loudmouth bully then bring that to the attention of all Canadians.
If they are evading questions and responding with insult and personal slurs, they should ring this loud and clear.
For all those MP's out there whose concept of truth is whether it is recorded in Hansard TV cameras offer one more means of holding them accountable.
In fact there should be a few more cameras panning the house and a production crew to operate the various cameras and get the good shots.
Norman, you have a forum from which to do just that and you have many years experiences involved in Federal politics. Surely, if there is any media guy around that could do this is you. Or, is it that your political affiliations get in the way.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/spector-vision/how-to-fix-qp-its-simple/article1711228/
In that Question Period is a very important and useful aspect of our Parliamentary System. Having camera's is also very important.
Getting rid of the camera's would give the Opposition one less ability to make the government accountable and thus enhance Canadian democracy. On the other hand, given the extent to which Stephen Harper and the Cons have curtailed our democratic process already and suppressed accountability, getting rid of the cameras seems like small potatoes, indeed.
It is the people of Canada that should stand up, be counted and say in no uncertain terms of what behavior and by whom they do not approve.
The media should shine their light in clear, unequivocal and glaring fashion at behavior that is unbecoming a representative of the people of this great and proud nation.
If someone is acting like a loudmouth bully then bring that to the attention of all Canadians.
If they are evading questions and responding with insult and personal slurs, they should ring this loud and clear.
For all those MP's out there whose concept of truth is whether it is recorded in Hansard TV cameras offer one more means of holding them accountable.
In fact there should be a few more cameras panning the house and a production crew to operate the various cameras and get the good shots.
Norman, you have a forum from which to do just that and you have many years experiences involved in Federal politics. Surely, if there is any media guy around that could do this is you. Or, is it that your political affiliations get in the way.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
14 September, 2010
- Harper's Little Secret
Submitted: 7:57am, PDT, CBC News
"NRA involved in gun registry debate"
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/09/13/canada-nra-gun-registry.html#socialcomments
If the truth be known . . .
It seems to me, a lot of people in Canada might be very surprised at the extent, range and degree to which Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada get instruction and direction from ultra-right conservative elements in the US. The NRA is but one facet.
I would guess that Con ideology, in all its fundamental glory, can be traced to the US.
When Harper says that he will follow the US in such important issues as Global Warming, it is no accident, simple dodging an issue, or trying to get close and personal with Obama. And, you can betcha the real motivation for the $16 billion purchase of the 65 F-35 is sourced in the US, to the extent that they made it sole source and did not allow any open bidding on it.
Of course, you can betcha Harper and the Con's will, as we have seen on many, many occasions, do his, and their, best to ensure that this truth not be known.
In cicblog: 31 Jul.'10, I opined:
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.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
"NRA involved in gun registry debate"
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/09/13/canada-nra-gun-registry.html#socialcomments
If the truth be known . . .
It seems to me, a lot of people in Canada might be very surprised at the extent, range and degree to which Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada get instruction and direction from ultra-right conservative elements in the US. The NRA is but one facet.
I would guess that Con ideology, in all its fundamental glory, can be traced to the US.
When Harper says that he will follow the US in such important issues as Global Warming, it is no accident, simple dodging an issue, or trying to get close and personal with Obama. And, you can betcha the real motivation for the $16 billion purchase of the 65 F-35 is sourced in the US, to the extent that they made it sole source and did not allow any open bidding on it.
Of course, you can betcha Harper and the Con's will, as we have seen on many, many occasions, do his, and their, best to ensure that this truth not be known.
In cicblog: 31 Jul.'10, I opined:
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.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
13 September, 2010
- Harper . . . a National Pharmacare Program? . . . Yah, Right!
Posted: 9/13/2010 12:59:32 PM The Globe and Mail
Universal pharmacare touted as way to save billions, André Picard Public health reporter, The Globe and Mail, Sep. 13, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/universal-pharmacare-touted-as-way-to-save-billions/article1704881/ Tab 20
If you think Stephen Harper or the Conservative Party of Canada would introduce as national pharmacare program, you must be on drugs (of the kind not likely to be subsidized any time soon by any government).
Getting everybody together to do mass purchasing and thus save $10billion is certainly a great idea and a strategy that has been with us for many generations.
Isn't that what organizing into a democratic political unit all about - everyone contributing to the benefit of all, and helping those that need help. This is, of course, unless you happen to be Stephen Harper or the Conservative Party of Canada, then it is the very un-democratic, controlling the many for the benefit of the few.
If I understand this report, there is three groups, private insurance, public drug plans (over 65 and social assistance) and 'out of pocket'.
A national drug plan would be, presumably, be a Federal expenditure. So, there may be $10 billion overall saving but those saving would likely be realized mostly by individuals, whereas the Federal coffers would pay the expenses.
So, I am not sure to simply transfer to a federal (or even the Provinces as a group) program is the way to go.
If the current expenditures is $25billion and this represents a saving of $10billion there is still $15 billion for which the Federal government would be picking up the tab. Of course, part of this is the already existing expense of the public drug plan (it seems 25% or, $5billion, which, presumably is provincial expense, but could be handled) . Thus, it represents a $10billion in increased spending from the Federal coffers.
However, it seems that if it is a question of organizing and co-ordinating purchasing, then charging a premium for individuals to participate certainly would make sense. On the other hand making provisions for those that truly cannot afford to pay the premium also makes sense.
Presumably this report is saying that the premium paid under such a co-ordinated purchasing plan by individuals would be less than what they already pay, if they are on a private plan. It would presumably also be less costly for those not on plans and those that on public drug plans would have the relief available. (For those for whom their company, or otherwise, currently pay for their private plan, could continue to pay the premium for this new plan, and with the same tax implications, why not.)
There is the issue of participation, of course.
If this is truly a savings on the individual level, then I can't see the problem. If such new plan takes in more than required (this can happen, just ask insurance companies) then perhaps those that did not take advantage of it up to the premium paid can get a discount (it would not be full, obviously) on the next premium.
At first blush, it sounds ok to me.
Except: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Universal pharmacare touted as way to save billions, André Picard Public health reporter, The Globe and Mail, Sep. 13, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/universal-pharmacare-touted-as-way-to-save-billions/article1704881/ Tab 20
If you think Stephen Harper or the Conservative Party of Canada would introduce as national pharmacare program, you must be on drugs (of the kind not likely to be subsidized any time soon by any government).
Getting everybody together to do mass purchasing and thus save $10billion is certainly a great idea and a strategy that has been with us for many generations.
Isn't that what organizing into a democratic political unit all about - everyone contributing to the benefit of all, and helping those that need help. This is, of course, unless you happen to be Stephen Harper or the Conservative Party of Canada, then it is the very un-democratic, controlling the many for the benefit of the few.
If I understand this report, there is three groups, private insurance, public drug plans (over 65 and social assistance) and 'out of pocket'.
A national drug plan would be, presumably, be a Federal expenditure. So, there may be $10 billion overall saving but those saving would likely be realized mostly by individuals, whereas the Federal coffers would pay the expenses.
So, I am not sure to simply transfer to a federal (or even the Provinces as a group) program is the way to go.
If the current expenditures is $25billion and this represents a saving of $10billion there is still $15 billion for which the Federal government would be picking up the tab. Of course, part of this is the already existing expense of the public drug plan (it seems 25% or, $5billion, which, presumably is provincial expense, but could be handled) . Thus, it represents a $10billion in increased spending from the Federal coffers.
However, it seems that if it is a question of organizing and co-ordinating purchasing, then charging a premium for individuals to participate certainly would make sense. On the other hand making provisions for those that truly cannot afford to pay the premium also makes sense.
Presumably this report is saying that the premium paid under such a co-ordinated purchasing plan by individuals would be less than what they already pay, if they are on a private plan. It would presumably also be less costly for those not on plans and those that on public drug plans would have the relief available. (For those for whom their company, or otherwise, currently pay for their private plan, could continue to pay the premium for this new plan, and with the same tax implications, why not.)
There is the issue of participation, of course.
If this is truly a savings on the individual level, then I can't see the problem. If such new plan takes in more than required (this can happen, just ask insurance companies) then perhaps those that did not take advantage of it up to the premium paid can get a discount (it would not be full, obviously) on the next premium.
At first blush, it sounds ok to me.
Except: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
12 September, 2010
- Harper, Why Do I Get The Feeling We're Being Con'd . . . Once Again
Posts were closed
Walkom: Why Harper’s government is so divorced from reality, Thomas Walkom, National Affairs Columnist, Sep 11 2010
http://www.thestar.com/article/859393--walkom-why-harper-s-government-is-so-divorced-from-reality
Here's something to consider:
Moderately high unemployment being useful for right wing supporters - keeping unions in check, wages down and excuse " to stomp on public sector wages and eliminate government programs" (yah, like Harper has ever considered that) and most of all,
"it keeps the population in line. Most are too busy worrying about their jobs to pay attention to matters like climate change or the Alberta oilsands." (Toronto Star)
+
a small core of die-hard, extremist, right wing support (with epi-centre Alberta), that keeps Stephen Harper and the Con's in power . . . (cicblog)
= . . . (You do the math).
The August Labour Force Survey is not a reliable indicator of an economy that is on the mend.
There may have been a net 36,000 created. However, not only did the jobless rate go up. But, according to the Statscan report, 68,000 were in educational services "rebounded from a decline of a similar magnitude the previous month." (lets see, as lose in teaching jobs in July followed be a corresponding gain in August, what does that indicate - a stronger economy or the Summer holidays). Also, "There were increases in the public sector (+58,000) and in self-employment (+18,000) in August, while there were declines among private sector employees (-40,000)."(Statscan)
Teaching jobs are important and one of the better ways to spend tax payers money - certainly much better than a lot of the ways the Harper government 'used' the Stimulus Spending. It is not so obviously for Public sector jobs and perhaps Stephen Harper could fill us in on their nature (it seems a significant number went to the PMO office). But this is still tax payers' money, going towards deficits and not indicative of an economy that is mending.
These numbers certainly do not indicate that the economic crisis is over.
Increasing EI premiums is a tax in crease, plane and simple. Although I am sure Harper, Fleherty and the Con's will say it isn't. One sure indicator is whether EI premiums goes to a separate, marked account, dedicated to EI payments, or the the general purse. Another, is as stated that EI premiums are already more than supporting the EI program (by the tune of 55 billion).
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Walkom: Why Harper’s government is so divorced from reality, Thomas Walkom, National Affairs Columnist, Sep 11 2010
http://www.thestar.com/article/859393--walkom-why-harper-s-government-is-so-divorced-from-reality
Here's something to consider:
Moderately high unemployment being useful for right wing supporters - keeping unions in check, wages down and excuse " to stomp on public sector wages and eliminate government programs" (yah, like Harper has ever considered that) and most of all,
"it keeps the population in line. Most are too busy worrying about their jobs to pay attention to matters like climate change or the Alberta oilsands." (Toronto Star)
+
a small core of die-hard, extremist, right wing support (with epi-centre Alberta), that keeps Stephen Harper and the Con's in power . . . (cicblog)
= . . . (You do the math).
The August Labour Force Survey is not a reliable indicator of an economy that is on the mend.
There may have been a net 36,000 created. However, not only did the jobless rate go up. But, according to the Statscan report, 68,000 were in educational services "rebounded from a decline of a similar magnitude the previous month." (lets see, as lose in teaching jobs in July followed be a corresponding gain in August, what does that indicate - a stronger economy or the Summer holidays). Also, "There were increases in the public sector (+58,000) and in self-employment (+18,000) in August, while there were declines among private sector employees (-40,000)."(Statscan)
Teaching jobs are important and one of the better ways to spend tax payers money - certainly much better than a lot of the ways the Harper government 'used' the Stimulus Spending. It is not so obviously for Public sector jobs and perhaps Stephen Harper could fill us in on their nature (it seems a significant number went to the PMO office). But this is still tax payers' money, going towards deficits and not indicative of an economy that is mending.
These numbers certainly do not indicate that the economic crisis is over.
Increasing EI premiums is a tax in crease, plane and simple. Although I am sure Harper, Fleherty and the Con's will say it isn't. One sure indicator is whether EI premiums goes to a separate, marked account, dedicated to EI payments, or the the general purse. Another, is as stated that EI premiums are already more than supporting the EI program (by the tune of 55 billion).
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
11 September, 2010
- Chantal Hébert, Turn on your Light, Let It shine, shine, shine, shine, shine
Hébert: Stephen Harper in no-win situation on funding for Quebec City arena, Toronto Star, Sep 10 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/859158--hebert-stephen-harper-in-no-win-situation-on-funding-for-quebec-city-arena
"A new arena is a pre-condition for the return of an NHL franchise to the city. Quebecor CEO Pierre Karl Péladeau – whose interest in buying such a franchise is widely known – also happens to be the driving force behind a new Conservative-friendly television network dubbed Fox News North."
"Last year, Harper won a long-held Bloc Québécois seat in the Lower St-Lawrence area. A subsequent Canadian Press study revealed that the riding of Montmagny-L’Islet-Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup had received record heaps of federal stimulus money. "
I didn't know that, (although, it does surprise me in the least)
Good reporting Chantal Hébert, thanks.
(Also, great pic!)
It seems, if I recall, a wise man once said . . . sorry, I meant Severely Hypocritical man once said, regarding the media in Democracies, that they should: "shine a light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable”.
I would recommend Chantal for the SH Award for Media Excellence in light shining.
Just think Stephen Harper is spending our money to buy him votes.
If Stephen Harper wants an NHL team in Quebec City then let him, and any other Con that feels that way, invest their own money. If they want to buy votes then let them spend money that has been raised by the Conservative Party of Canada. Isn't that fair, isn't that the morally right thing to do.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/859158--hebert-stephen-harper-in-no-win-situation-on-funding-for-quebec-city-arena
"A new arena is a pre-condition for the return of an NHL franchise to the city. Quebecor CEO Pierre Karl Péladeau – whose interest in buying such a franchise is widely known – also happens to be the driving force behind a new Conservative-friendly television network dubbed Fox News North."
"Last year, Harper won a long-held Bloc Québécois seat in the Lower St-Lawrence area. A subsequent Canadian Press study revealed that the riding of Montmagny-L’Islet-Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup had received record heaps of federal stimulus money. "
I didn't know that, (although, it does surprise me in the least)
Good reporting Chantal Hébert, thanks.
(Also, great pic!)
It seems, if I recall, a wise man once said . . . sorry, I meant Severely Hypocritical man once said, regarding the media in Democracies, that they should: "shine a light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable”.
I would recommend Chantal for the SH Award for Media Excellence in light shining.
Just think Stephen Harper is spending our money to buy him votes.
If Stephen Harper wants an NHL team in Quebec City then let him, and any other Con that feels that way, invest their own money. If they want to buy votes then let them spend money that has been raised by the Conservative Party of Canada. Isn't that fair, isn't that the morally right thing to do.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Maxime Bernier, now Vic Toews, both hard liner right wing extremists, . . . hummmm . . . I wonder.
Submitted: 9:10am, PDT, Winnipeg Free Press
Manitoba got 'more than its fair share', Toews reveals his thinking on Quebec City arena bucks, Bruce Owen, Winnipeg Free Press, 11/09/2010
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/manitoba-got-more-than-its-fair-share-dh-dh-102683319.html?commentConfirmed=y#comments
See below: "Harper: By the Way, Did I Mention, This isn't 'Stimulus' Spending, It's 'Vote Buying' Spending." (11 September, 2010)
Manitoba got 'more than its fair share', Toews reveals his thinking on Quebec City arena bucks, Bruce Owen, Winnipeg Free Press, 11/09/2010
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/manitoba-got-more-than-its-fair-share-dh-dh-102683319.html?commentConfirmed=y#comments
See below: "Harper: By the Way, Did I Mention, This isn't 'Stimulus' Spending, It's 'Vote Buying' Spending." (11 September, 2010)
- Harper: By the Way, Did I Mention, This isn't 'Stimulus' Spending, It's 'Vote Buying' Spending.
Submitted: 8:32am, PDT, 11 Sep.'10 CBC News
(posted and on the first attempt - hurray!!!)
Bernier slams PM pledge to fund arenas, September 10, 2010 , CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/09/10/arena-funding-conservatives.html
Didn't I hear Harper say the stimulus spending is over???
Oh, I see, this isn't 'stimulus' spending,
it's 'vote buying' spending,
my mistake.
"The International Monetary Fund has issued a secret recipe for global economic recovery that is sure to taste sour to many G20 leaders.
The confidential report, obtained by The Canadian Press, says advanced countries must make government spending cuts their top priority — the same message Prime Minister Stephen Harper and some other leaders are pushing at this weekend's G20 summit. "(G&M)
(by the way, I don't recall Harper referring to this IMF Report when he was grandstanding in the media, lecturing the other G20 countries about stopping stimulus spending and reducing deficits)
“Advanced countries must send a clear message that as their stimulus plans expire, they will focus on getting their fiscal houses in order,” Harper said. (Toronto Star)
Perhaps the way around this apparent inconsistency is that Harper doesn't consider Canada to be one of those 'advanced' countries - it seems I recall Harper referring to Canada as becoming a 'second-tier socialist country . . . [with] second rate status" (National Post)
Maxime Bernier is right on this one, no, not just politically but morally as well (I never thought I would be saying that).
Just think Stephen Harper is spending my money to buy him votes.
If Stephen Harper wants an NHL team in Quebec City then let him, and any other Con that feels that way, invest their own money. If they want to buy votes then let them spend money that has been raised by the Conservative Party of Canada. Isn't that fair, isn't that the morally right thing to do.
In my blog "Harper: I Get By With a Lot of Help From My Friends (Core of Die Hard Supporters Epi-centre Alberta)", discussing the possible erosion of die-hard support for Harper, I wrote:
"One question is, of course, where has this core die-hard support eroded. According to this poll it may be Quebec. However, I am no so sure of this, their support has decreased there but that doesn't mean their core die-hard support has decreased there. Also, there is some suggestion that if Stephen Harper builds a hockey arena in Quebec City to bring in a NHL franchise the Con's may very well pick up 5 or 6 seats - sounds pretty cynical to me.
(05 August, 2010)
On 16 July, 2010, I wrote ("Eye watering technology"??? - Peter MacKay, how about the "eye watering bill")
"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." (cicblog, 16 Jul.'10)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
(posted and on the first attempt - hurray!!!)
Bernier slams PM pledge to fund arenas, September 10, 2010 , CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/09/10/arena-funding-conservatives.html
Didn't I hear Harper say the stimulus spending is over???
Oh, I see, this isn't 'stimulus' spending,
it's 'vote buying' spending,
my mistake.
"The International Monetary Fund has issued a secret recipe for global economic recovery that is sure to taste sour to many G20 leaders.
The confidential report, obtained by The Canadian Press, says advanced countries must make government spending cuts their top priority — the same message Prime Minister Stephen Harper and some other leaders are pushing at this weekend's G20 summit. "(G&M)
(by the way, I don't recall Harper referring to this IMF Report when he was grandstanding in the media, lecturing the other G20 countries about stopping stimulus spending and reducing deficits)
“Advanced countries must send a clear message that as their stimulus plans expire, they will focus on getting their fiscal houses in order,” Harper said. (Toronto Star)
Perhaps the way around this apparent inconsistency is that Harper doesn't consider Canada to be one of those 'advanced' countries - it seems I recall Harper referring to Canada as becoming a 'second-tier socialist country . . . [with] second rate status" (National Post)
Maxime Bernier is right on this one, no, not just politically but morally as well (I never thought I would be saying that).
Just think Stephen Harper is spending my money to buy him votes.
If Stephen Harper wants an NHL team in Quebec City then let him, and any other Con that feels that way, invest their own money. If they want to buy votes then let them spend money that has been raised by the Conservative Party of Canada. Isn't that fair, isn't that the morally right thing to do.
In my blog "Harper: I Get By With a Lot of Help From My Friends (Core of Die Hard Supporters Epi-centre Alberta)", discussing the possible erosion of die-hard support for Harper, I wrote:
"One question is, of course, where has this core die-hard support eroded. According to this poll it may be Quebec. However, I am no so sure of this, their support has decreased there but that doesn't mean their core die-hard support has decreased there. Also, there is some suggestion that if Stephen Harper builds a hockey arena in Quebec City to bring in a NHL franchise the Con's may very well pick up 5 or 6 seats - sounds pretty cynical to me.
(05 August, 2010)
On 16 July, 2010, I wrote ("Eye watering technology"??? - Peter MacKay, how about the "eye watering bill")
"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." (cicblog, 16 Jul.'10)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
09 September, 2010
- Hey Stephen Harper - “Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive” (Sir Walter Scott)
No cash, no signs: Tories made stimulus funds contingent on erecting billboards, Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press, The Globe and Mail, Sep. 09, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/no-signs-no-cash-tories-made-stimulus-funds-contingent-on-erecting-billboards/article1700043/ Tab 43
Access to Information nets 'secret memo'???
I'm surprised that we didn't require a ruling from the Speaker of the House, with a Committee to vet each such documents to protect national security.
How many people out there think this is all a bit 'over the top' even for Stephen Harper and all the Con's running this great country of ours.
How many cynically believe that this is a self-serving, partizan 'action plan' by Harper and the Con's to have the Stimulus funds identified with the Conservative Party of Canada, and at the tax payer's expense.
"Dimitri Soudas said. 'But ultimately, signs for projects under the Economic Action Plan is a sign of transparency and accountability.'"
How many out there think that when Harper and the Con's say it is simply 'transparency' and 'accountability' what they are really referring to is trying to make Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada transparent and make people feels that they are accountable to Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada party for these funds, as opposed to all the people of Canada, united as one great nation, helping those that need help.
Oh, and by the way, did I mention . . . if you notice, Dimitri Soudas is not saying that the reason it is being done is for 'transparency and accountability', simply that is the, alleged, result.
Also, lets be rational here. If it is being done for ' transparency and accountability', why the secrecy.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/no-signs-no-cash-tories-made-stimulus-funds-contingent-on-erecting-billboards/article1700043/ Tab 43
Access to Information nets 'secret memo'???
I'm surprised that we didn't require a ruling from the Speaker of the House, with a Committee to vet each such documents to protect national security.
How many people out there think this is all a bit 'over the top' even for Stephen Harper and all the Con's running this great country of ours.
How many cynically believe that this is a self-serving, partizan 'action plan' by Harper and the Con's to have the Stimulus funds identified with the Conservative Party of Canada, and at the tax payer's expense.
"Dimitri Soudas said. 'But ultimately, signs for projects under the Economic Action Plan is a sign of transparency and accountability.'"
How many out there think that when Harper and the Con's say it is simply 'transparency' and 'accountability' what they are really referring to is trying to make Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada transparent and make people feels that they are accountable to Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada party for these funds, as opposed to all the people of Canada, united as one great nation, helping those that need help.
Oh, and by the way, did I mention . . . if you notice, Dimitri Soudas is not saying that the reason it is being done is for 'transparency and accountability', simply that is the, alleged, result.
Also, lets be rational here. If it is being done for ' transparency and accountability', why the secrecy.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Stephen Harper on the Long Form Census - What are the Odds We're Being Con'd
9/9/2010 10:00:54 AM The Globe and Mail
Government study reveals significant errors in voluntary census, Steven Chase, The Globe and Mail, Sep. 09, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/government-study-reveals-significant-errors-in-voluntary-census/article1700566/ Tab 17
"A study conducted by Statistics Canada weeks before Ottawa revealed its plan to scrap the mandatory long-form census found that significant errors can creep into survey results gathered on a voluntary basis.
. . .
The Statscan study, Potential Impact of Voluntary Survey on Selected Variables, was prepared with full knowledge of Ottawa’s census change plans."
Here's a few questions for which all those statisticians out there might hazard a guess.
- what are the odds that Tony Clement was not aware of this study:
- prior to announcing getting rid of the Long Form census
- by the time of the resignation of Munir Sheikh
- until today's newspaper
- what are the odds that Tony Clement come out and make a statement that he was aware of it and when.
- If you were required to complete the Long Form Census (under the current regime, by threat of law)
would you:
a) - bite the bullet and fill it out
b) - leave it blank and make them force you
c) - lie
d) - put your religion down as 'Jedi'
- If there is a change would you rather:
a) get rid of the Long Form entirely and just go with the regular
census
b) get rid of the sanctions and rely on the good will of Canadians
to fill it out.
c) Have no problems with it if they paid you:
- $10.00 (hey, ten bucks, is ten bucks)
- $50.00
- $100.00
- other [please fill in]
- Given there are:
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.
What are the odds of any Canadian violating one of these on any given day.
- If Harper and the Con's got rid of every one of these, based on Canadians should not be compelled by force of law, how long would it take to get rid of all of them.
- What are teh odds we are being Con'd by Stephen Harper, Tony Clement and the Conservative Party of Canada
Also, how does this study square with everything Tony Clement has said regarding the Long Form Registry - anyone hazard a guess.
PS: Harper attacking the 'Long' Form Census and 'Long' Gun Registry, what is this, some kind of Freudian thing.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Government study reveals significant errors in voluntary census, Steven Chase, The Globe and Mail, Sep. 09, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/government-study-reveals-significant-errors-in-voluntary-census/article1700566/ Tab 17
"A study conducted by Statistics Canada weeks before Ottawa revealed its plan to scrap the mandatory long-form census found that significant errors can creep into survey results gathered on a voluntary basis.
. . .
The Statscan study, Potential Impact of Voluntary Survey on Selected Variables, was prepared with full knowledge of Ottawa’s census change plans."
Here's a few questions for which all those statisticians out there might hazard a guess.
- what are the odds that Tony Clement was not aware of this study:
- prior to announcing getting rid of the Long Form census
- by the time of the resignation of Munir Sheikh
- until today's newspaper
- what are the odds that Tony Clement come out and make a statement that he was aware of it and when.
- If you were required to complete the Long Form Census (under the current regime, by threat of law)
would you:
a) - bite the bullet and fill it out
b) - leave it blank and make them force you
c) - lie
d) - put your religion down as 'Jedi'
- If there is a change would you rather:
a) get rid of the Long Form entirely and just go with the regular
census
b) get rid of the sanctions and rely on the good will of Canadians
to fill it out.
c) Have no problems with it if they paid you:
- $10.00 (hey, ten bucks, is ten bucks)
- $50.00
- $100.00
- other [please fill in]
- Given there are:
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.
What are the odds of any Canadian violating one of these on any given day.
- If Harper and the Con's got rid of every one of these, based on Canadians should not be compelled by force of law, how long would it take to get rid of all of them.
- What are teh odds we are being Con'd by Stephen Harper, Tony Clement and the Conservative Party of Canada
Also, how does this study square with everything Tony Clement has said regarding the Long Form Registry - anyone hazard a guess.
PS: Harper attacking the 'Long' Form Census and 'Long' Gun Registry, what is this, some kind of Freudian thing.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
08 September, 2010
- Where Have All The Core Con's Gone (sung to the tune of 'Where Have All the Soldiers Gone')
Posted: 9/8/2010 12:37:27 PM The Globe and Mail
Tories, Liberals and NDP get bad news in latest poll, John Ibbitson and Jane Taber, Sep. 08, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-liberals-and-ndp-get-bad-news-in-latest-poll/article1699082/ Tab 68
It seems to me the important aspect of the current Polls is the provincial numbers. Unfortunately the margins of error for the Provinces is quite large to the extent that the Liberals and The Conservative Party are statistically equal everywhere except the Prairies (what can you do). Also important is the undecided.
The Con's have 33% - but see below - die-hard, extremist right wing, with epi-centre in Alberta, support, which keeps Stephen Harper and the Con's in power, (I refer to it as the 'core con number'). This ought to be taken into account in any analysis since it can be assumed they will support Harper in any Poll (as long as he stays on program and produces the goods)
Normally one might take the undecideds and distribute them pro-rata (I refer to it as the 'Keith Davies' adjustment) . However, given the core con number one must assume that the 33% essentially represents all the die-hard supporters and so there are disproportionately much fewer Con's in the undecided, to the point of it being statistically insignificant.
To see how this core con number number skews results, take for example, the Leadership Index:
Trust: Nanos gives Stephen Harper: 25.5
i.e., of the 33% die-hard 25.5 points choose him as the most trusted.
So, at least 7.5 points of core con's are not choosing Harper as the most trusted. And, if you assume that some of the 25.5% are not die-hards, then it is even worse for Harper. Same for the undecideds, if there are an appreciable number of die-hards in the undecideds that bodes ill for Harper.
So, the trust score for Harper should be more accurately set at: - 7.5%, or less
Similarly,
- Competence for Harper should be more accurately set at: -2.7%
- Vision for Harper should be more accurately set at: - 5.5%
In other words, Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada may be in trouble with his core of supporters and we may see an adjustment of the core con number in the coming months. The big question is why. This may be that some simply disagree with the many things Harper has done in the past while and it has built up to them starting to question their support (undecideds) or have actually been pushed over the top (gone to other Parties). It could also be basically the opposite and some are displeased with Harper's watering down policy and doing everything by stealth, not coming right out and stating exactly what he stands for and what his policies are. The indications are that they represent as much as 5 - 7% of the core con number.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Tories, Liberals and NDP get bad news in latest poll, John Ibbitson and Jane Taber, Sep. 08, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-liberals-and-ndp-get-bad-news-in-latest-poll/article1699082/ Tab 68
It seems to me the important aspect of the current Polls is the provincial numbers. Unfortunately the margins of error for the Provinces is quite large to the extent that the Liberals and The Conservative Party are statistically equal everywhere except the Prairies (what can you do). Also important is the undecided.
The Con's have 33% - but see below - die-hard, extremist right wing, with epi-centre in Alberta, support, which keeps Stephen Harper and the Con's in power, (I refer to it as the 'core con number'). This ought to be taken into account in any analysis since it can be assumed they will support Harper in any Poll (as long as he stays on program and produces the goods)
Normally one might take the undecideds and distribute them pro-rata (I refer to it as the 'Keith Davies' adjustment) . However, given the core con number one must assume that the 33% essentially represents all the die-hard supporters and so there are disproportionately much fewer Con's in the undecided, to the point of it being statistically insignificant.
To see how this core con number number skews results, take for example, the Leadership Index:
Trust: Nanos gives Stephen Harper: 25.5
i.e., of the 33% die-hard 25.5 points choose him as the most trusted.
So, at least 7.5 points of core con's are not choosing Harper as the most trusted. And, if you assume that some of the 25.5% are not die-hards, then it is even worse for Harper. Same for the undecideds, if there are an appreciable number of die-hards in the undecideds that bodes ill for Harper.
So, the trust score for Harper should be more accurately set at: - 7.5%, or less
Similarly,
- Competence for Harper should be more accurately set at: -2.7%
- Vision for Harper should be more accurately set at: - 5.5%
In other words, Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada may be in trouble with his core of supporters and we may see an adjustment of the core con number in the coming months. The big question is why. This may be that some simply disagree with the many things Harper has done in the past while and it has built up to them starting to question their support (undecideds) or have actually been pushed over the top (gone to other Parties). It could also be basically the opposite and some are displeased with Harper's watering down policy and doing everything by stealth, not coming right out and stating exactly what he stands for and what his policies are. The indications are that they represent as much as 5 - 7% of the core con number.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
07 September, 2010
- Harper attacking the 'Long' Form Census and 'Long' Gun Registry, what is this, some kind of Freudian thing.
If you were required to (under the current regime, by threat of law)
would you:
a) - bite the bullet and fill it out
b) - leave it blank and make them force you
c) - lie
d) - put your religion down as 'Jedi'
If there is a change would you rather:
a) get rid of the Long Form entirey and just go with the regular
census
b) get rid of the sanctions and rely on te good will of Canadioans
to fill it out.
c) Have no problems with it if they paid you:
- $10.00 (hey, ten bucks, is ten bucks)
- $50.00
- $100.00
- other [please fill in]
Also,
Harper and the Con's attacking the
'Long' Form Census
'Long' Gun Registry
What is this, some kind of Freudian, macho, 'my-way-or-the-high-way' thing, or what.
and,
The threat of jail time and/or fines for things like not completing
the Long Form is considered by governments as 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
28 July, 2010, "Stephen Harper: It's The Ideology, Stupid!"
********************
Do I perceive an inconsistency with the Harper policies:
- if it furthers Harper's hyper-partizan, right-wing extremist
agenda, then the sky's the limit on spending.
But, if it goes against the Harper hyper-agenda then any amount is'
wasteful and ineffective', despite how much it benefits Canada as a
whole and our way of life.
If the Con on the Long Form census is: get rid of the sanctions,
make it voluntary.
Then Harper, wouldn't it be consistent to do the same for the Long
Gun Registry.
. . . Oh, I see, then people would decline to register their guns
and the information as a resource would be unreliable - now why
didn't I see that argument coming.
But then, even with the current sanction on the Gun Registry they
could simply put down "Jedi" for 'use' (or is it 'religion'),
couldn't they Mr. Harper, I mean applying your neo-rational
pseudo-reasons.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
31 August, 2010, "Careful, It's Another a Harper Con"
***************
If it is the potential criminal charges that is his concern, then
simply suggest other methods. I think they should pay the people to
fill the form out, after all StatsCan does sell the information and
people use it to make money and we are in a Commerce based society.
That is likely to get a better response than the threat of criminal
sanctions.
Also, Flanagan should point out all the other places that abiding
by the legislation is re-inforced by criminal sanctions. I can't
wait to see Harper and the Con's get to dealing with each of these,
one-by-one.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
22 August, 2010, "Harper's 'Right' Knight To The Rescue"
would you:
a) - bite the bullet and fill it out
b) - leave it blank and make them force you
c) - lie
d) - put your religion down as 'Jedi'
If there is a change would you rather:
a) get rid of the Long Form entirey and just go with the regular
census
b) get rid of the sanctions and rely on te good will of Canadioans
to fill it out.
c) Have no problems with it if they paid you:
- $10.00 (hey, ten bucks, is ten bucks)
- $50.00
- $100.00
- other [please fill in]
Also,
Harper and the Con's attacking the
'Long' Form Census
'Long' Gun Registry
What is this, some kind of Freudian, macho, 'my-way-or-the-high-way' thing, or what.
and,
The threat of jail time and/or fines for things like not completing
the Long Form is considered by governments as 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
28 July, 2010, "Stephen Harper: It's The Ideology, Stupid!"
********************
Do I perceive an inconsistency with the Harper policies:
- if it furthers Harper's hyper-partizan, right-wing extremist
agenda, then the sky's the limit on spending.
But, if it goes against the Harper hyper-agenda then any amount is'
wasteful and ineffective', despite how much it benefits Canada as a
whole and our way of life.
If the Con on the Long Form census is: get rid of the sanctions,
make it voluntary.
Then Harper, wouldn't it be consistent to do the same for the Long
Gun Registry.
. . . Oh, I see, then people would decline to register their guns
and the information as a resource would be unreliable - now why
didn't I see that argument coming.
But then, even with the current sanction on the Gun Registry they
could simply put down "Jedi" for 'use' (or is it 'religion'),
couldn't they Mr. Harper, I mean applying your neo-rational
pseudo-reasons.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
31 August, 2010, "Careful, It's Another a Harper Con"
***************
If it is the potential criminal charges that is his concern, then
simply suggest other methods. I think they should pay the people to
fill the form out, after all StatsCan does sell the information and
people use it to make money and we are in a Commerce based society.
That is likely to get a better response than the threat of criminal
sanctions.
Also, Flanagan should point out all the other places that abiding
by the legislation is re-inforced by criminal sanctions. I can't
wait to see Harper and the Con's get to dealing with each of these,
one-by-one.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
22 August, 2010, "Harper's 'Right' Knight To The Rescue"
- Jonathan Malloy, where is your 'The Incremental Tearing Asunder of a Nation' box.
Posted: 9/7/2010 11:23:35 AM The Globe and Mail
Why does the Harper government do what it does? Beats us, Jonathan Malloy, Globe and Mail, Sep. 07, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/why-does-the-harper-government-do-what-it-does-beats-us/article1694280/
Trying to fit Harper and the Con's into pre-existing and traditionally defined boxes won't work. A big example is referring to Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada as the 'Tories'. The reason that this is problematic is that, in a word, 'they're not the Tories'.
There are a number of things that underlying Harper and the Con's and make it difficult to fit that into one of Malloy Boxes.
- Harper has dedicated his public life to tearing our Canada - the one that our forefather built through their blood, seat and tears, the free, open, tolerant society, whose purpose was to unit and build all of Canada for the good of all of Canadians - asunder.
- Harper has a core of die-hard, right wing extremist supporters with epi-centre Alberta (up until very recently 33%) that he can count on to support him just about no matter what, as long as they feel he will deliver the goods.
- the Harper strategy is to chip away at the underpinnings of our nationalism and Parliamentary form of government with the purpose of defaulting to the Provinces. He is doing it in an stealth fashion, keeping it just low enough, or under the radar so as not to wake Canadians up to what he is doing. To this end Harper is playing a game of inches (more like football than hockey). His targets are either small, with little chance of uniting Canadians in opposition, but with very significant impact, or appeals to people on an emotional basis with rationality suppressed.
- As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canadians be dam[redacted]d'.
- Harper pushes the limits with these small steps with the intention of demonstrating to the die-hard core that he is still their man. But, sometimes he miscalculates in the reaction to these incremental steps, or simply doesn't care as long as it doesn't unit the opposition, as long as it is not a ballot issue that would go against him.
- Harper cannot simply come out and let all Canadians know exactly what he intends as far as Canada is concerned since it would unite the opposition and he would get the boot, post haste, and that just wouldn't do.
- It is not simply implementing ultra conservative values, reduction of federalism ad absurdum, but also stopping the flow of oil profits from Alberta to the rest of Canada, and that simply wouldn't do, now would it.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Why does the Harper government do what it does? Beats us, Jonathan Malloy, Globe and Mail, Sep. 07, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/why-does-the-harper-government-do-what-it-does-beats-us/article1694280/
Trying to fit Harper and the Con's into pre-existing and traditionally defined boxes won't work. A big example is referring to Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada as the 'Tories'. The reason that this is problematic is that, in a word, 'they're not the Tories'.
There are a number of things that underlying Harper and the Con's and make it difficult to fit that into one of Malloy Boxes.
- Harper has dedicated his public life to tearing our Canada - the one that our forefather built through their blood, seat and tears, the free, open, tolerant society, whose purpose was to unit and build all of Canada for the good of all of Canadians - asunder.
- Harper has a core of die-hard, right wing extremist supporters with epi-centre Alberta (up until very recently 33%) that he can count on to support him just about no matter what, as long as they feel he will deliver the goods.
- the Harper strategy is to chip away at the underpinnings of our nationalism and Parliamentary form of government with the purpose of defaulting to the Provinces. He is doing it in an stealth fashion, keeping it just low enough, or under the radar so as not to wake Canadians up to what he is doing. To this end Harper is playing a game of inches (more like football than hockey). His targets are either small, with little chance of uniting Canadians in opposition, but with very significant impact, or appeals to people on an emotional basis with rationality suppressed.
- As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can take the position 'Canadians be dam[redacted]d'.
- Harper pushes the limits with these small steps with the intention of demonstrating to the die-hard core that he is still their man. But, sometimes he miscalculates in the reaction to these incremental steps, or simply doesn't care as long as it doesn't unit the opposition, as long as it is not a ballot issue that would go against him.
- Harper cannot simply come out and let all Canadians know exactly what he intends as far as Canada is concerned since it would unite the opposition and he would get the boot, post haste, and that just wouldn't do.
- It is not simply implementing ultra conservative values, reduction of federalism ad absurdum, but also stopping the flow of oil profits from Alberta to the rest of Canada, and that simply wouldn't do, now would it.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
06 September, 2010
- Hey Harper, Looks Like You May Have To Add a Few $100 Million to The G-20 Security Costs
Posted: 9/6/2010 12:15:11 PM The Globe and Mail
Police made mistakes in G20 tactics, chief admits for first time, Gobe and Mail, Sep. 03, 2010 8:55PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/police-made-mistakes-in-g20-tactics-chief-admits-for-first-time/article1694815/
So, $160 million, and counting, in law suits. This is not to say legal fees and costs, on both sides, as well as to the administration of justice.
I wonder what other post-G8-20 costs we will have to add to over one billion in security costs already admitted (I think admitted anyway, or is it $250 million admitted and over $1billion actual, I have to check).
As I blogged 20 June: 'Harper the Master Strategist - Give them Toronto':
"In an interview with CTV's . . . Canada AM Monday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper denounced the violence that he called 'pretty disturbing and pretty deplorable.'
[Stephen Harper]
'That said, these leaders, we attend summits all the time and we know the unfortunate reality is that these summits attract a certain thuggish criminal element. And that's just the reality,' he said.
'Unfortunately, when you have peaceful protests, there are some who use it for other purposes… So leaders understand, we've seen it in other cities, we're going to see it again in the future.'
. . .
[So, it seems Harper knew in advance the likelihood of such destruction in downtown Toronto.]
One need only ask themselves why Harper changed the location of the G20 from Tony Clement's riding to 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 [trashing of downtown area] 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."
"Chief Blair also acknowledged the problems his force faced the previous day, when the small group of black-bloc anarchists splintered off a larger peaceful march. He said he was 'taken by surprise' by the anarchists’ moves, and that it was “extremely difficult” to police a march and a mob at the same time. He said Saturday’s anarchy had an effect on Sunday’s police tactics. "
Chief Blair explains that they were 'taken by surprise' by the splintering from the main, peaceful protest.
Perhaps Harper should have briefed Chief Blair on the risks.
An interesting question is whether this is a new tactic by G8-20 protestors or something that has been used before, and if so how common is it.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Police made mistakes in G20 tactics, chief admits for first time, Gobe and Mail, Sep. 03, 2010 8:55PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/police-made-mistakes-in-g20-tactics-chief-admits-for-first-time/article1694815/
So, $160 million, and counting, in law suits. This is not to say legal fees and costs, on both sides, as well as to the administration of justice.
I wonder what other post-G8-20 costs we will have to add to over one billion in security costs already admitted (I think admitted anyway, or is it $250 million admitted and over $1billion actual, I have to check).
As I blogged 20 June: 'Harper the Master Strategist - Give them Toronto':
"In an interview with CTV's . . . Canada AM Monday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper denounced the violence that he called 'pretty disturbing and pretty deplorable.'
[Stephen Harper]
'That said, these leaders, we attend summits all the time and we know the unfortunate reality is that these summits attract a certain thuggish criminal element. And that's just the reality,' he said.
'Unfortunately, when you have peaceful protests, there are some who use it for other purposes… So leaders understand, we've seen it in other cities, we're going to see it again in the future.'
. . .
[So, it seems Harper knew in advance the likelihood of such destruction in downtown Toronto.]
One need only ask themselves why Harper changed the location of the G20 from Tony Clement's riding to 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 [trashing of downtown area] 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."
"Chief Blair also acknowledged the problems his force faced the previous day, when the small group of black-bloc anarchists splintered off a larger peaceful march. He said he was 'taken by surprise' by the anarchists’ moves, and that it was “extremely difficult” to police a march and a mob at the same time. He said Saturday’s anarchy had an effect on Sunday’s police tactics. "
Chief Blair explains that they were 'taken by surprise' by the splintering from the main, peaceful protest.
Perhaps Harper should have briefed Chief Blair on the risks.
An interesting question is whether this is a new tactic by G8-20 protestors or something that has been used before, and if so how common is it.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
04 September, 2010
- Hurry, Hurry, Hurry, Step Right (Morally, that is) This Way
Not Yet Posted:
"RACE DEADLOCKED AS CONSERVATIVES FALTER ON CENSUS DECISION - September 2, 2010, Ekospolitics
http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2010/09/race-deadlocked-as-conservatives-falter-on-census-decision-september-2-2010/
By the way - I disagree with the analysis put forward by Ekos (see below) at least to the extent that it tells the whole story. When you look at a Province by Province breakdown, what you find, in my opinion, is a migration to the Green and Block parties (which is heavily environmental). It may be that University educated people are more 'enlightened' about the environment (I am not commenting on that). They seem to be shifting away from the Con's due to the Long Form Census and Gun Registry, etc., etc., etc., but they seem to be choosing their new 'tent' based on environmental issues. This would explain why the Liberals are the same over the last two Ekos Polls.
A couple of years ago, prior to the last election, I suggested that Dion announce that if the Liberal were to win he would ask Elizabeth May to be Environment Minister. Ignatieff wouldn't likely do this, but he should make it very clear, and soon, that the Liberal Big Tent is big enough to welcome Green Party supporters, and make them feel at home, whom, I would think, are every bit as eager to give Harper and the Con's the boot as any others in Canada.
Also, the 29.4% for Harper and the Con's nationally is only a bit under the 'mythical' 33% considering the margin of error (2.7% nationally). If you look at Alberta you see that if anything the die-hards are still there and with a bit bigger numbers (2.8 points). The big difference seems to be BC where the Con's dropped 15.4 points, the Lib's were essentially the same, GP up 6.3% and NDP up 7.6. Atlantic shifted from the Con's to the GP with a per centage sticking to the Lib's as the went by (Con's down 12.4, Lib's up 9.2 and GP up 13.4 points) - but you must keep in mind differences in sizes of populations, which will affect the overall.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
****
http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2010/09/race-deadlocked-as-conservatives-falter-on-census-decision-september-2-2010/
. . .
"RACE DEADLOCKED AS CONSERVATIVES FALTER ON CENSUS DECISION - September 2, 2010
In the last week of polling, the Conservatives and the Liberals were in an almost exact tie at 29.4% and 29.1%, respectively. The NDP, the Green Party, and the Bloc show little change (although the Greens and the Bloc are up modestly). The demographics show that the Liberal move to a tied position is almost exclusively a product of a major shift in how the university educated are leaning. The Conservatives have shed many of their university educated supporters and the Liberal Party has picked them up (as well as some possible gains from other university educated voters)."
"RACE DEADLOCKED AS CONSERVATIVES FALTER ON CENSUS DECISION - September 2, 2010, Ekospolitics
http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2010/09/race-deadlocked-as-conservatives-falter-on-census-decision-september-2-2010/
By the way - I disagree with the analysis put forward by Ekos (see below) at least to the extent that it tells the whole story. When you look at a Province by Province breakdown, what you find, in my opinion, is a migration to the Green and Block parties (which is heavily environmental). It may be that University educated people are more 'enlightened' about the environment (I am not commenting on that). They seem to be shifting away from the Con's due to the Long Form Census and Gun Registry, etc., etc., etc., but they seem to be choosing their new 'tent' based on environmental issues. This would explain why the Liberals are the same over the last two Ekos Polls.
A couple of years ago, prior to the last election, I suggested that Dion announce that if the Liberal were to win he would ask Elizabeth May to be Environment Minister. Ignatieff wouldn't likely do this, but he should make it very clear, and soon, that the Liberal Big Tent is big enough to welcome Green Party supporters, and make them feel at home, whom, I would think, are every bit as eager to give Harper and the Con's the boot as any others in Canada.
Also, the 29.4% for Harper and the Con's nationally is only a bit under the 'mythical' 33% considering the margin of error (2.7% nationally). If you look at Alberta you see that if anything the die-hards are still there and with a bit bigger numbers (2.8 points). The big difference seems to be BC where the Con's dropped 15.4 points, the Lib's were essentially the same, GP up 6.3% and NDP up 7.6. Atlantic shifted from the Con's to the GP with a per centage sticking to the Lib's as the went by (Con's down 12.4, Lib's up 9.2 and GP up 13.4 points) - but you must keep in mind differences in sizes of populations, which will affect the overall.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
****
http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2010/09/race-deadlocked-as-conservatives-falter-on-census-decision-september-2-2010/
. . .
"RACE DEADLOCKED AS CONSERVATIVES FALTER ON CENSUS DECISION - September 2, 2010
In the last week of polling, the Conservatives and the Liberals were in an almost exact tie at 29.4% and 29.1%, respectively. The NDP, the Green Party, and the Bloc show little change (although the Greens and the Bloc are up modestly). The demographics show that the Liberal move to a tied position is almost exclusively a product of a major shift in how the university educated are leaning. The Conservatives have shed many of their university educated supporters and the Liberal Party has picked them up (as well as some possible gains from other university educated voters)."
02 September, 2010
- Democracy is Democracy and Harper is Harper and Never the Twain Shall Meet.
Submitted: 9/2/2010 10:59:46 AM The Globe and Mail
Where is Ignatieff’s plan to restore our democracy?,
Lawrence Martin, Globe and Mail, Sep. 02, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/where-is-ignatieffs-plan-to-restore-our-democracy/article1693052/ Tab 17
Many of the reforms Lawrence Martin suggest are important and interesting.
Protecting ourselves from the type of government of Harper and the Cons is vital to maintaining the Canada that was forged by the generations of the blood sweat and tears of those that came before us - the tolerant, complex, multi-faceted nation, with an open, rationally based modern Democratic government bent solely to the good of all Canadians, to help all those that need help and protect all those that need protection.
Harper strategy is to implement his extremist, right wing ideology and re-make Canada into an extremist, right wing, intolerant society, catering to a small segment, by ignoring our Democratic Institutions disenfranchising the overwhelming majority of Canadians, hamstringing all Institutional supervision and do everything through his Executive powers. One of the prime methods is appointing like minded to every administrative position in sight.
However, changes in law, codification of rules, is a mug's game that plays into the hands of rulers of the likes of Harper. Just look at the fixed term elections legislation that Harper himself brought in. A leader that does not have the best interest of the nation at heart can find any excuse to ignore the true meaning and purpose of a piece of legislation and twist and 'interpret' its provisions to their own ends. Also consider the 'Accountability Act', which is no more than an elaborate media campaign for Harper.
The weakness in our system is that it assumes that the leader acts for the benefit of all Canadians and for the good of the nation. Up till Harper we had that and that is why these problems are arising at this juncture.
Harper has dedicated his public life to tears this great nation of ours asunder. His polices are designed to benefit the core of die-hard right wing, extremist supporters with epi-centre in Alberta and the rest of Canada be dam[redacted]ed.
Unless all Canadians are willing to stand up, be counted, and in unison say "I want my Canada back" (Ken Dryden, Liberal leadership convention) Harper can do all these thing with impunity.
As long as these Harper polices do not consolidate the opposition then Harper and the Conservative party can take this position and 'Canada be dam[redacted]d'.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Where is Ignatieff’s plan to restore our democracy?,
Lawrence Martin, Globe and Mail, Sep. 02, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/where-is-ignatieffs-plan-to-restore-our-democracy/article1693052/ Tab 17
Many of the reforms Lawrence Martin suggest are important and interesting.
Protecting ourselves from the type of government of Harper and the Cons is vital to maintaining the Canada that was forged by the generations of the blood sweat and tears of those that came before us - the tolerant, complex, multi-faceted nation, with an open, rationally based modern Democratic government bent solely to the good of all Canadians, to help all those that need help and protect all those that need protection.
Harper strategy is to implement his extremist, right wing ideology and re-make Canada into an extremist, right wing, intolerant society, catering to a small segment, by ignoring our Democratic Institutions disenfranchising the overwhelming majority of Canadians, hamstringing all Institutional supervision and do everything through his Executive powers. One of the prime methods is appointing like minded to every administrative position in sight.
However, changes in law, codification of rules, is a mug's game that plays into the hands of rulers of the likes of Harper. Just look at the fixed term elections legislation that Harper himself brought in. A leader that does not have the best interest of the nation at heart can find any excuse to ignore the true meaning and purpose of a piece of legislation and twist and 'interpret' its provisions to their own ends. Also consider the 'Accountability Act', which is no more than an elaborate media campaign for Harper.
The weakness in our system is that it assumes that the leader acts for the benefit of all Canadians and for the good of the nation. Up till Harper we had that and that is why these problems are arising at this juncture.
Harper has dedicated his public life to tears this great nation of ours asunder. His polices are designed to benefit the core of die-hard right wing, extremist supporters with epi-centre in Alberta and the rest of Canada be dam[redacted]ed.
Unless all Canadians are willing to stand up, be counted, and in unison say "I want my Canada back" (Ken Dryden, Liberal leadership convention) Harper can do all these thing with impunity.
As long as these Harper polices do not consolidate the opposition then Harper and the Conservative party can take this position and 'Canada be dam[redacted]d'.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
01 September, 2010
- Ignatieff v. Harper: The Big Tent v. the Big Con
submitted: 9:16 am, PDT, 1 Sep.'10 CBC
10:56am, PDT, 1 Sep.'10
(let's see if they post it this time on the first try, last time it took three tries)
re-submitted: 10:56am, PDT, 1 Sep.'10
(let's try again)
Harper priorities 'prisons and planes': Ignatieff, September 1, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/09/01/ignatieff-wrap-up.html#socialcomments
- And I dreamed I saw the F-35 stealth jet planes . . . turn into health care, child care, retirement security, post secondary education . . . across our nation (take-off from Joni Mitchell lyrics "Woodstock')
Rock on Iggy
excerpt: comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
10:56am, PDT, 1 Sep.'10
(let's see if they post it this time on the first try, last time it took three tries)
re-submitted: 10:56am, PDT, 1 Sep.'10
(let's try again)
Harper priorities 'prisons and planes': Ignatieff, September 1, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/09/01/ignatieff-wrap-up.html#socialcomments
- And I dreamed I saw the F-35 stealth jet planes . . . turn into health care, child care, retirement security, post secondary education . . . across our nation (take-off from Joni Mitchell lyrics "Woodstock')
Rock on Iggy
excerpt: comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
- And I dreamed I saw the F-35 stealth jet planes . . . turn into health care, child care, retirement security, post secondary education . . . across our nation (take-off from Joni Mitchell lyrics "Woodstock')
Posted: 9/1/2010 11:53:13 AM The Globe and Mail
Military sees F-35’s stealth as way to assert sovereignty, Campbell Clark, Sep. 01, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/military-sees-f-35s-stealth-as-way-to-assert-sovereignty/article1692076/
With all due respect, Lieutenant-General André Deschamps, that's not the reason Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and the other Con's have been giving, not until that so-called 'Russian invasion' last week, that is.
Peter MacKay's reasons appears to be that it is 'eye watering technology' (and that is in Hansard) and it is a great recruiting tool
"Asked at a news conference last month for 'specific examples of the uses of these aircraft,' MacKay mostly focused on what a great recruiting device they make.
'[I]t helps a great deal, I can assure you, in recruiting, to have new gear, new equipment, that is state of the art,' MacKay said."(Toronto Star)
I think making DS's standard issue would fit MacKay's bill much better and be cheaper (depending on the number of games issued)
Also,
I think more to the point is as Laurie Hawk, sorry Hawn (slip of the pen), pointed out: "Alberta and Cold Lake will certainly figure prominently in the life of the F-35," (The Ottawa Citizen)
I guess there is some kind of logic (of the political, partizan kind) behind it, after all, the money is from all the revenues flowing from Alberta to the Canadian Federal purse due to their oil and gas; and, Alberta is the reason Harper is in power.
Our current, recently upgraded, arsenal of F-18's seemed to be more than adequate to meet the recent, apparent, threats to Canadian sovereignty by the Russians. (Compare: "At no time did the Russian military aircraft enter Canadian or U.S. sovereign airspace," said NORAD's statement. "Both Russia and NORAD routinely exercise their capability to operate in the north. These exercises are important to both NORAD and Russia and are not cause for alarm."Ottawa Citizen)
So, there appears to be no historical basis for the assertion that we need to upgrade from the F-18's to the F-35's to protect our sovereignty.
Also, there is a serious flaw in the logic in asserting that we need to upgrade from F-18's to F-35's for such purpose.
The F-35's may be able to sneak up on Russian Bombers. But, as the F-18's showed I suspect just about any fighter jet could get 'up close and personal' with these planes.
However there are a number of things:
- why is it important to sneak up on them, if the objective is deterrence. One would think 'the more visible the better'
What is the likelihood that they would not refrain from entering our air space even if we were very visible about it.
On the other hand, if they did, we would not likely shoot them down and so why the need to sneak up on them. Unless Harper and the Con government is preparing our military for war, I can't see it. If they are, I think all Canadians ought to know and forthwith.
- If an enemy is going to incur into Canadian air space, they are very likely to do it with at least the same technology as the F-35's and, after all, there are few possible threats to our Arctic sovereignty that are not part of the 'Joint Strike Fighter' (perhaps Mr. Deschamps could explain why they use the adjective 'strike') program.
"The United Kingdom, Italy, The Netherlands, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Australia and Turkey have formally joined the U.S. and contributed money toward the program. These partners are either NATO countries and/or close US allies, and peacekeeping and war fighting more recently have been done by coalitions. " (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-int.htm)
That leaves the Russians and the Chinese - I don't see them violating our air space and I don't see them without comparable technology - this suggests a scene of opposing fighter jets flying all over the place trying to find each other.
On the other hand, if terrorists get hold of comparable 'eye-watering technology' then I might agree and shoot them down on sight.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Military sees F-35’s stealth as way to assert sovereignty, Campbell Clark, Sep. 01, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/military-sees-f-35s-stealth-as-way-to-assert-sovereignty/article1692076/
With all due respect, Lieutenant-General André Deschamps, that's not the reason Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and the other Con's have been giving, not until that so-called 'Russian invasion' last week, that is.
Peter MacKay's reasons appears to be that it is 'eye watering technology' (and that is in Hansard) and it is a great recruiting tool
"Asked at a news conference last month for 'specific examples of the uses of these aircraft,' MacKay mostly focused on what a great recruiting device they make.
'[I]t helps a great deal, I can assure you, in recruiting, to have new gear, new equipment, that is state of the art,' MacKay said."(Toronto Star)
I think making DS's standard issue would fit MacKay's bill much better and be cheaper (depending on the number of games issued)
Also,
I think more to the point is as Laurie Hawk, sorry Hawn (slip of the pen), pointed out: "Alberta and Cold Lake will certainly figure prominently in the life of the F-35," (The Ottawa Citizen)
I guess there is some kind of logic (of the political, partizan kind) behind it, after all, the money is from all the revenues flowing from Alberta to the Canadian Federal purse due to their oil and gas; and, Alberta is the reason Harper is in power.
Our current, recently upgraded, arsenal of F-18's seemed to be more than adequate to meet the recent, apparent, threats to Canadian sovereignty by the Russians. (Compare: "At no time did the Russian military aircraft enter Canadian or U.S. sovereign airspace," said NORAD's statement. "Both Russia and NORAD routinely exercise their capability to operate in the north. These exercises are important to both NORAD and Russia and are not cause for alarm."Ottawa Citizen)
So, there appears to be no historical basis for the assertion that we need to upgrade from the F-18's to the F-35's to protect our sovereignty.
Also, there is a serious flaw in the logic in asserting that we need to upgrade from F-18's to F-35's for such purpose.
The F-35's may be able to sneak up on Russian Bombers. But, as the F-18's showed I suspect just about any fighter jet could get 'up close and personal' with these planes.
However there are a number of things:
- why is it important to sneak up on them, if the objective is deterrence. One would think 'the more visible the better'
What is the likelihood that they would not refrain from entering our air space even if we were very visible about it.
On the other hand, if they did, we would not likely shoot them down and so why the need to sneak up on them. Unless Harper and the Con government is preparing our military for war, I can't see it. If they are, I think all Canadians ought to know and forthwith.
- If an enemy is going to incur into Canadian air space, they are very likely to do it with at least the same technology as the F-35's and, after all, there are few possible threats to our Arctic sovereignty that are not part of the 'Joint Strike Fighter' (perhaps Mr. Deschamps could explain why they use the adjective 'strike') program.
"The United Kingdom, Italy, The Netherlands, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Australia and Turkey have formally joined the U.S. and contributed money toward the program. These partners are either NATO countries and/or close US allies, and peacekeeping and war fighting more recently have been done by coalitions. " (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-int.htm)
That leaves the Russians and the Chinese - I don't see them violating our air space and I don't see them without comparable technology - this suggests a scene of opposing fighter jets flying all over the place trying to find each other.
On the other hand, if terrorists get hold of comparable 'eye-watering technology' then I might agree and shoot them down on sight.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)