- 'In-Out' Scandal - How About 'In with Rationality' and 'Out With Rhetoric'

Posted: 4:35 PM & 4:51 PM on February 27, 2011 The Globe and Mail
Tories dismiss election spending charges as ‘accounting dispute’, Steven Chase, Globe and Mail, Feb. 26, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-dismiss-election-spending-charges-as-accounting-dispute/article1920834/

The first thing to say is, of course, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. And that applies to this case as well.

In a take-off from Voltaire (apparently) - I may disapprove of the allegations with which you have been charged, but I will defend your right to demand they be proved.


However, I am puzzled at Pierre Poilievre position, which if I understand is that the matter has already been resolved by the Federal Court.

First it is quite curious that these charges would be laid if the defence were simply a question "res judicata" - i.e., the matter has already been judged.

This one one of the most fundamental tenants of our legal system and it is hard to see how even a first year law student would get it so wrong, never mind experienced prosecutors presumably with considerable experience and reputations and careers at stake if they mess up on something if this stature.

Keep in mind that laying charges does not mean guilt and I am not talking about that. What I am saying is, if a Judge has already determined on the matter, then, presumably, they would not be laying such charges.

Second, perhaps Pierre Poilievre could take the rational, objective approach of actually pointing to the charges as laid and pointing to the decision referred to and explaining why the latter precludes the former.

A rendition of the formal charges may be found at:
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=abo&dir=com/stat&document=charg2011&lang=e

When so doing he should refer to and discuss the judge's statement at para. 268:

"[268] Third, the fact that there is a concurrent criminal investigation underway that might result in charges under the Act being laid against the Party, the Fund or individuals, is not enough by itself to shift the balance of convenience in favour of the respondent or the Crown."

- Callaghan v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) (20100118), 2010 FC 43, ( Martineau, J., FCTD, T-838-07)
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2010/2010fc43/2010fc43.html


In other words, it is submitted that the judge was quite aware that there was a criminal investigation but did not feel that his judgement put an end to it.

That, of course, gets to the issue of just exactly what was happening in the court case.

It is very long and complex, but it seems to me that basically the 'equitable' issue was with whom should the disputed funds reside while Elections Canada was investigating and deciding whether to proceed with the underlying matter, whether criminally or otherwise.

The judge, it seems to me, decided that the balance of convenience was with the applicants. It seems that the decisions turned on 'interlocutory' type considerations, which does not necessarily imply a finding of no guilt by the applicant, but more that them having the money while the underlying dispute was being resolved, would do less damage to Elections Canada than Elections Canada holding the money would do to the candidates. Given the nature of the activities (election expenses), as well as the presumption of innocence, it is easy to think that it is better for the money to be with the candidate until the dispute is resolved.

This, to me, is supported by the Court's statement of the issues:

"[61] The question that is now before this Court is whether the respondent can legally refuse to certify for the purposes of reimbursement under section 465 of the Act, the claimed advertising expenses on the ground that he is not satisfied that these expenses have actually been incurred by the applicants or the candidates for whom they act as official agents."

especially when read in conjunction with the above referred to para [268]

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

* My sentiments along these lines has been captured by, Harrington, J. (Sloan v. Commissioner of Canada Elections, (20091210) 2009 FC 1264, T-1726-09 at para.1):

Apparently Voltaire never said:

"Je ne suis pas d’accord avec ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai pour que vous ayez le droit de le dire."

It may be that the phrase was invented by his English biographer, Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who wrote:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

- Puzzle Me This: When Does Being Right Not Mean You're Being Right

Posted: 11:37 AM on February 27, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/one-of-these-polls-on-harpers-lead-is-not-like-the-other/article1920604/

One of these polls on Harper’s lead is not like the other, Gloria Galloway
Globe and Mail Update, February 25, 2011 11:06AM EST

When looking at the 'full report' for the Abacus Poll there are a number of things.

http://abacusdata.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Vote-Choice-February-2011.pdf

First is his statement

"Abacus Data: Not your average pollster Abacus Data Inc. is Canada’s newest player in the public opinion and marketing research industry."

not that 'new' necessarily means 'not as good', but, practice does make perfect.

Also, he mentions that he is using weighted results:

"Results of the survey were statistically weighted by gender, age, region, language using census data from

Statistics Canada and by past vote using Elections Canada results from the 2008 General Election. Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding."

He then invites you to go to his Website for more details - I did but couldn't find the 'more details on weighting'.

The weighting itself can, obviously, cause different results, since otherwise what's the point of weighting.

My impression is that some results are expanded and others contracted depending on demographics.

However, then you are dealing with smaller samples that intrinsically have larger margins of error.

So, I have difficulty accepting his margin of error if it is based on the gross sample. Adjusting for this could bring his results more in line with other polls.

His states it is: +/-3.1%, 19 times out of 20, which to me is what polls seem to get when the sample is 1000 or more, without weighting

He should also reconsider his weighting anyway, since pretty soon any numbers from StatsCan will be more unreliable than not weighting.

Then there is always what % the answers are undecided.

This does not affect all the Parties the same since the Con's have a die-hard core that will answer the poll and answer Con. The larger the undecided, then the smaller the decided and the larger a % these die-hard Con's make up.

Unfortunately I never seem to be able to find Ekos' undecided.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- If Canadians are in the Middle and Harper Is Extreme Right, Then Just Where Is Harper Leading Us

Posted: 11:51 AM & 12:57 PM on February 26, 2011 The Globe and Mail
Who’s afraid of a big, bad Harper majority? John Ibbitson, Globe and Mail, Feb. 25, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/whos-afraid-of-a-big-bad-harper-majority/article1921627/

"Reg Alcock, a Liberal who served in Paul Martin's cabinet as Treasury Board president and now teaches at the University of Manitoba's business school. 'Canadian governments are elected to serve all Canadians,” he observes, “and all of them tend to move toward the centre, because that is where the people are.' Mr. Harper's paramount desire to make the Conservatives Canada's new natural governing party will always serve as the best check on whatever rabid-right tendencies he might harbour."

The people of Canada are at the centre, politically - you got that right (morally)

So,

What rationale is there to elect the right-wing extremist Harper and hope he will 'drift towards the centre'

Doesn't it just make sense to elect a Party that is already at the centre, that shares, and understands, on a fundamental level, the core values of all Canadians, where no 'drifting' be needed

Now isn't that just rational

And it isn't simply the party drifting towards the centre. Harper and the Con's have been hard at work in the last 5 years, dragging Canada to the right, farther and farther and therein lies the problem

Harper has been quietly, 'under the radar', so to speak, in a slow, methodical and insidious fashion, tainting, perverting and corrupting various institutions, distorting, obstructing, obscuring, obfuscating, through the usurpation of administrative power and bad faith application thereof for the purpose of grasping and maintaining power and dragging all of Canada to the extreme right

One of the fundamental problems with the way power distribution has evolved in Canada is it is based on the assumption that the Prime Minister and the party in power act in good faith, for the good of all Canadians

With Harper this is simply not the case

Stephen Harper has 33% die-hard support, epi-centred in Alberta, that support him pretty much no matter what as long as he tows the extreme right ideological line

With a minority they have 'cut him some slack' since they feel it's better to have Harper in power than not

Describing this as 'moving towards the centre' is a serious mischaracterization.

With a majority Harper will willingly and whole heartedly, come home to roost in the extreme right, and not by drifting


Harper's game plan is to drag Canada and Canadian values to the extreme right, where people like GW Bush, Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing US extremists reside,

dismantling Canada and abdicating to the provinces - look at Harper's background to predict how he would negotiate Health Care, equalization and social transfers when they become open in a couple years, especially if he had a majority -


With a Harper majority we can all kiss our 'social safety-net' goodbye.

People seem to forget that a fundamental tenant of Con'ism is 'sink or swim', everyone for themselves, me-not-we, to the rich go the spoils.

Stripping Canada of our safety net does simply mean less taxes, which benefits the rich in a disproportionate fashion, but it also means less security, whether by way of health-care, support in our old age, education, day-care, unemployment, or whatever.

It is our seniors now that have the most to lose, since they have grown old and contributed a lifetime, expecting that these social safety nets will be there for them, only to have it all pulled-out from under them. At their stage in life they simply cannot adjust. The rest of us at least have some chance of adjusting.

But keep in mind that it is ever only a small per-cent that 'share the wealth' in a laissez-faire, win-loser system that is Con'ism.

Our youth also have much to lose by way of compromised education and child-care and restriction of opportunities to those that happen to have been born into a family that can afford good quality rearing and education - thus entering the viscous cycle of the dis-advantaged.

That's just simply what Canadian federalism is all about.

All Canadians getting together to help those that need help, to provide the opportunity for all Canadian to share in a 'good life';

to allow our elderly to grow old with dignity and grace, to reap their rewards for a lifetime of contribution, of hard work and sacrifice;

to allow or youth to grow and develop so that they may reach their potential not simply for their own fulfillment as a human being, but because it makes us strong and a nation - it makes us strong in a deep and fundamental fashion that a lucky few having lots of money simply does not afford.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Here's a Slogan: 'Let's get "Tough on Con's" and give Harper the boot'

Posted: 10:50 AM on February 25, 2011 The Globe and Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/playing-the-politics-of-slogans-and-fear/article1916381/

"There is no rationale or excuse for confining those who are not physically dangerous, nor for
reducing their access to treatment, which is cheaper, more effective, and more humane than prison,
though less likely to appeal to knuckle-dragging deadbeats of the jail ’em, flog ’em, hang ’em
school.


. . .

It is bad policy and shabby politics, and the government has those votes anyway so it is not
clear why it is alienating the rest of us, who want a justice system based on decency, efficiency,
and results, not oafish posturing."

Conrad when you're right, you're right - morally that is.

(Conrad Black, February 19, 2011 national post)


As I posted: cicblog.com/comments, 27 Jan.'11 (also: 9 Jun.'10; 12 Dec.'09) - comments on G&M

Harper:

“Canadians want to be able to feel safe in their homes and communities, and that means that the bad guys need to be taken out of circulation. Does that cost money? Yes. Is it worth it? Just ask a victim.”

"just ask a victim"

We, all Canadians, are victims of Harper ideology and the rhetoric, obfuscation, misinformation, misrepresentation, and propaganda spewing from Harper, Toews and all the Con's.

For example: "'Under the previous system, criminals – including convicted terrorists – were sometimes released the day after their sentencing. This is unacceptable to Canadians,' said Christopher McCluskey, who added that the government has extended financial support to victims.

I don't know who McCluskey is but perhaps he could tell us just example how many 'convicted terrorists' he is referring to and their circumstance so we all could decide whether the 10's of billions of dollars are really worth it.

Harper's 'Tough on Crime' is obviously just a play on people fears and emotions and an insult to the intelligence and integrity of all Canadians.

No more than an emotional appeal to the Con's right wing voter base - the ones that keep him in office as long as the Moderate Majority do not consolidate.

Harper's approach is deliberately devoid of logic, rationality and fact based policy development. That is why the Harper approach is to lengthen the jail terms of offenders rather than do something that will actually reduce crime - a G.W. Bush agenda, manifestly demonstrated to be a complete disaster

The disaster Bush made of the US is a prime example of just how much damage can be done when the wrong person is leading the country, something every Canadian ought to think seriously about in the next election

Harper and the Con's have nothing to support their position to say that it is in the best interest of all Canadians. In fact, all the evidence points to the exact opposite. This is illustrated by the Report released by Graham Stewart, Prof Michael Jackson, et al, in late September, "A Flawed Compass"

The response by the Con’s: “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan (to CBC)

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper Majority - You Can Kiss Your Safety Net Good-Bye

submitted: 9:44am, & submitted: 9:47am, 23 Feb.'11 The Toronto Star
Goar: Harper is cutting off ‘lifeblood of democracy’
Published On Wed Feb 23 2011
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/943260--goar-harper-is-cutting-off-lifeblood-of-democracy

- Carol Goar, Turn On Your Light, Let It Shine, Shine, Shine, Shine, Shine on Harper and His Con's

Stephen Harper understands fully the importance of the free flow of information to Democracy, freedom and the Canadian way of life our forefathers built through generations of blood, sweat and tears.

That is why he is so keen to suppress the truth, obscure, obstruct, obfuscate and has built the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western Democracies in recent history

Otherwise, it would be plain for all Canadians to see his game plan of

dragging Canada and Canadian values to the extreme right, where people like GW Bush, Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing US extremists reside,

dismantling Canada and abdicating to the provinces - look at Harper's background to predict how he would negotiate Health Care, equalization and social transfers when they become open in a couple years, especially if he had a majority -

you can kiss your safety net good-bye.

Of course Harper is allowed to do all these things because of a die-hard core (33%) of right-wing extremists who support him on everything, Canada and Canadians be dam[redacted]ed, as long as he produces that is, who are keeping him in power.

And, as long as the Moderate Majority (66%) don't consolidate.

If I recall, someone, whose initials are SH (Stephen Harper not Severely Hypocritical - I know, same thing), once said:

The media in Democracies should: "shine a light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable”.

I would recommend Goar for the SHAME (Stephen Harper Award for Media Excellence) in light shining.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Layton and Harper - Yet Another Dog and Pony Show

Posted: 11:36 AM on February 22, 2011 Globe and Mail
With Harper playing ‘games,’ NDP rattles election sabre, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail, February 21, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/with-harper-playing-games-ndp-rattles-election-sabre/article1914927/

The meeting between Layton and Harper was, pure and cynical, game playing

Harper has no intention of moderating his budget, for anybody - vis.: “But we don't engage in horse trading or negotiations over the budget."(G&M, 22 Feb.'11).

The only reason Harper met with Layton was so he could say " after listening to the pitches of other parties" (G&M, 22 Feb.'11).

It is interesting to not the use of the phrase "of other parties" as opposed to say "the other parties".

Harper chose Layton and the NDP in an attempt to divide the opposition.

The only thing Harper has to be concerned about in an election is the consolidation of the 66% Moderate Majority that want someone else leading this great country of ours.

Clearly Harper feels that the consolidation would not likely be to the NDP. By allowing Layton to tout that he, and not Ignatieff, has influence, perhaps some who would otherwise go to the Liberals would vote NDP - and presto, another so many years of Harper and his Con's.

Layton still has his 'dream' of becoming the Official Opposition, of acquiring more seats than Broadbent.

For Layton, too, consolidation is his greatest concern since, as with Harper, it is not likely to be around the NDP.

Layton also knows that Harper would not 'horse trade', but when Harper did say he met with other parties, Layton could tout that that party was NDP.

This, of course, explains why Layton took the Corporate Tax cuts off the table when he met with Harper. It would be an automatic show stopper - and that is the last thing Layton wanted - and if Harper did make some concessions it might be attributed to the Liberals. Wouldn't it be funny if this omission had been orchestrated between them before the meeting.

Neither Harper nor Layton had any expectation of Harper listening or moderating his budget.

Neither Harper nor Layton had the good of all Canadians at heart.

When it gets 'right' down to the hard bedrock, there is nothing 'left',

it was nothing but "yet another Dog and Pony show"

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Riddle Me This: "What do you get when you Take The Die-Hards From the Harper"

Posted: 12:19 PM on February 21, 2011 Globe and Mail
Tory attack ads pack a punch that leaves Liberals reeling, John Ibbitson, Globe and Mail, February 21, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tory-attack-ads-pack-a-punch-that-leaves-liberals-reeling/article1914858/

It is interesting to note in the Nanos Poll that 'Regional Ballot' can be explained by taking the decrease in undecided and pretty much spreading it equally amongst the CON, NDP and GRN (except for the Block), especially within the margins of error.

This would mean that the Con's are not gaining ground but when the undecideds decide, they are pretty much spreading equally amongst the other parties. For this to occur, it is hard to believe that they are doing this according to party preference (since you would expect it more pro-rated).

Perhaps it is co-incidence (ha-ha-ha) or a flaw in the polling methods and without more details I can't see eliminating either.

On the other hand, if other polls by other polling companies are getting similar results then this is a pretty interesting phenomenon (perhaps it is attack ad effect)

The 'Best PM' polling result are much more straight forward since there is little change in 'unsure' & 'none-of-them' (presumably these two are comparable to 'undecided')

The polls for quite awhile now have manifested a unwavering die-hard support for Harper and the Con's of approx. 33% who would support Harper pretty much no matter what he did as long as he stays in line, Canada be dam[redacted]ed.

It is not hard to imagine that they would, first of all, answer the question, 'Best PM', and secondly, chose Harper.

If you look at the most recent results you see that they pretty much make up all of those choosing Harper and within the margin of errors there are not others.

So, those in the spread between die-hards and choosing Con (39.7 - 33) 6.7 do not think Harper is the 'Best PM'.

If I were the Con's that is what I would look at, especially given the observation above, and the fact that last time 'Best PM' was below the 33% die-hards, (28.4 with MOE 3.1).

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Rock On, Conrad - When You're Right, You're Right

Posted: 11:28 AM on February 19, 2011 national post
Ruth Bonneville/Winnipeg Free Press, 19 Feb.'11
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/19/conrad-black-the-case-against-being-dumb-on-crime/
Conrad Black: The case against being dumb on crime

"There is no rationale or excuse for confining those who are not physically dangerous, nor for
reducing their access to treatment, which is cheaper, more effective, and more humane than prison,
though less likely to appeal to knuckle-dragging deadbeats of the jail ’em, flog ’em, hang ’em
school.


. . .

It is bad policy and shabby politics, and the government has those votes anyway so it is not
clear why it is alienating the rest of us, who want a justice system based on decency, efficiency,
and results, not oafish posturing."

Conrad when you're right, you're right - morally that is.

As I posted: cicblog.com/comments, 27 Jan.'11 (also: 9 Jun.'10; 12 Dec.'09) - comments on G&M

Harper:

“Canadians want to be able to feel safe in their homes and communities, and that means that the bad guys need to be taken out of circulation. Does that cost money? Yes. Is it worth it? Just ask a victim.”

"just ask a victim"

We, all Canadians, are victims of Harper ideology and the rhetoric, obfuscation, misinformation, misrepresentation, and propaganda spewing from Harper, Toews and all the Con's.

For example: "'Under the previous system, criminals – including convicted terrorists – were sometimes released the day after their sentencing. This is unacceptable to Canadians,' said Christopher McCluskey, who added that the government has extended financial support to victims.

I don't know who McCluskey is but perhaps he could tell us just example how many 'convicted terrorists' he is referring to and their circumstance so we all could decide whether the 10's of billions of dollars are really worth it.

This is obviously just a play on people fears and emotions and an insult to the intelligence and integrity of all Canadians.

Harper and the Con's "Tough on Crime" is no more than an emotional appeal to the Con's right wing voter base - the ones that keep him in office as long as the Moderate Majority do not consolidate.

Harper's approach is deliberately devoid of logic, rationality and fact based policy development. That is why the Harper approach is to lengthen the jail terms of offenders rather than do something that will actually reduce crime - a G.W. Bush agenda, manifestly demonstrated to be a complete disaster

The disaster Bush made of the US is a prime example of just how much damage can be done when the wrong person is leading the country, something every Canadian ought to think seriously about in the next election

Harper and the Con's have nothing to support their position to say that it is in the best interest of all Canadians. In fact, all the evidence points to the exact opposite. This is illustrated by the Report released by Graham Stewart, Prof Michael Jackson, et al, in late September, "A Flawed Compass"

The response by the Con’s: “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan (to CBC)

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments

- Harper majority - God save Canada

The Tories’ quest for a federal majority will lead them to B.C., JOHN IBBITSON, Globe and Mail, Feb. 17, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politics/the-tories-quest-for-a-federal-majority-will-lead-them-to-bc/article1912310/

I think you make a good point by saying that there will be a lot of action in BC in the next election.

I think you are also right when you say that "In B.C., voters often swing between the Conservatives and the NDP, bypassing the Liberals entirely." I know from personal experience.

One might think, given it circumstances that the Liberals (Federal) would be more in play in BC and I am always intrigued by their poor performance (and have my theories, of course).

However, I disagree that the analysis ought to be focused on close races from the last election.

Keith Martin's (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) is a good example.

In the last election we experience the Dion effect (including his Green policy). Liberals generally took a dive then, with approx 800,000 - 900,000 vote less than previously (as I recall). These votes left from somewhere and it may be that Martin's riding (as well as Dosanjh's) felt the impact more than others.

Clarification: Martin stayed pretty much the same in the last three elections both in absolute number and %'s - vis.:
...............'04..................'06.....................'08
Lib:..19 389/35.3......20 761/34.9......20 042/34.2
Con: 13 271/24.2......16 327/27.5......19 974/34.1
Ndp: 16 821/30.6......18 595/31.3......13 322/22.7
Grn:...5 078/09.2.......3 385/05.7.......4 854/08.3

It was a combination of another party taking a dive (NDP) and the switch...between NDP and Con, bypassing the Lib's.

In BC generally Lib's votes dove by 31.4%

voter turn out BC:

08......06......04
60.1...63.7...63.3


total votes BC
........... Con........NDP...............Lib........... Grn...............total
08: 797 177... 467 882.........346 344...168 282.........1 793 400

06: 682 109... 521 473.........504 738...97 002.........1 805 322

04: 628 999... 460 435.........494 992...109 861.........1 733 360

An explanation is that in Martin's riding, because his support was solid and Dion turned NDP'ers off they voted strategically to oust Martin.

Then there's Dosanjh (ah, another day)

If the Liberals can avoid another 'Dion effect' close races like Martin's may not be that much in play.

If Martin's riding is in play this time, it is more because Martin is not running than a close race last time, since clearly the support for the Liberal has been solid, the only question to what extent martin plaid a part.

One thing that may well come into play generally is whether the 66% non right-wing extremists that do not want Canada to be run by Harper and the Con's consolidate. This may not bode well for the Liberals in BC since the consolidation may not be to their party.

Another thing that may come into play is the Vaughan scenario. In this the Con vote, in absolute terms, stayed pretty much the same, but the Lib vote decreased by 10,000*, this resulted in a Con victory where previously it might well have been considered safe.

This the Liberal Party should be concerned about, real concerned, and if it were me I'd be looking at ridings where this may be possible and I am not sure there are very many in BC

All Canadians should be concerned too, since if the Liberals take another fall, it will likely be a Con majority, in which case - God Save Canada!

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Mr. Harper, Canadians Have A Right To Know, What Evil Lurks in the Hearts of Con's

Submitted: 6:47am, PST, 18 Feb.'11 CBC News
The Oda affair, Sorry, prime minister, two wrongs don't make a right, Don Newman, February 17, special to CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2011/02/17/f-vp-newman.html#socialcomments-submit

Harper stonewalling is simply reprehensible and indicates, yet again, the Con's uber partisan approach to everything.

When push come to shove, Harper simply can not be trusted to do the right (morally) thing, to put his obligations as PM above grasping and maintaining power.

Harper, Beard and the Con's are putting on a dog-and-pony show (or is it pony-and-dog show) to try to distract the Canadians people's attention from the real issue

Is Beve Oda in contempt of Parliament

Canadians have a right to know

It is disgraceful and embarrassing to think that we have a Prime Minister and governing party that is so contemptuous of the representatives of the people.

However, Harper can pretty much do as he pleases since

Harper is kept in power by a core (33% , the Silent Minority) of like minded, right-wing extremists that provide the funds and blindly support him - as long as he 'delivers the goods' - much to the detriment of Canada and all Canadians as a whole.

Harper and the Con's know this and take the approach that they can do pretty much what they want as long as they don't precipitate a consolidation of the Moderate Majority (66% Canadians that do not buy into the political extremism of Harper and his Con's) that don't want him or subscribe to what he stands for.


By the way, as I posted, 1 Oct.'10, cicblog.com/comments:

"In Parliament on 2 Dec.'08 Stephen Harper stated that "we will fight it with every means that we have" (and Peter McKay this is in Hansard)

Perhaps Stephen Harper, John Baird, even Kory Teneycke or any other member of the Conservative Party of Canada could explain just exactly what Harper meant by these words.

Apparently Harper was not willing to reveal this extremist attitude during his address the next day - "Canada’s Government will use every legal means at our disposal to protect our democracy". One can only wonder why he added "legal" when the light of the media was shining strongly, with all Canadians watching. Also, when Harper says "our democracy", 'our' was evidently referring to his own special brand of 'democracy of the Right' as opposed to 'Canadian Democracy'.

Perhaps John Baird might explain exactly what he meant when he stated "what we want to do is . . . go over the heads of the members of Parliament; go over the heads, frankly, of the Governor General, go right to the Canadian people." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL76A5jUq1k at 3:20)"

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper Comes Down From the Hill with His Ten Commandments

- Harper Simply Can Not Be Trusted to Do the Right (Morally) Thing

Posted: 10:06 AM on February 17, 2011 The Globe and Mail
Can Tory ministers
get away with lying? Liberals think not, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail, February 17, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/can-tory-ministers-get-away-with-lying-liberals-think-not/article1911141/

The document at the heart of the Oda scandal states that:

". . .

RECOMENDATION - That you sign below to indicate that you [not] approve a contribution of $7,098,758 over four years for the approved program"

Then right below it is purported to be signed by:
"Naresh Singh, A/Vice President, Canadian Partnership Branch",
"Margaret Bi[not clear]ggs, President:
"Beverley Oda, Minister of International Cooperation"

It is on the letter head of the: "Canadian International Development Agency, President"

(see: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/amended-cida-document/article1903050/?from=1911141)

The first thing to note is that:

the "not" has been inserted by hand (I know, I know, 'tell me something I don't know').

But, what is astounding is that given the importance of this such a legal document the 'not' has not initial and dated

There is no indication on the face of the document that any of the three signatories approved of the change.

Given that it is a declaration of their states of mind it is hard to understand anyone changing it without notifying them first and getting their approval to the changes. This is done on legal documents by initialing and dating the change.

Second:

The statement is not Bev Oda approving the funding it is a declaration that three people are thereby indicating they are approving the funding.

Altering this statement suggests that the three signatories in fact are of the opposite position.

It is a simple matter to just ask them if they approved, at the time of the changes, the changes to the document or if they even knew.
Apparently Bev Oda at Committee stated that she didn't know who did it.

What about the other two, what do they have to say.

According to Harper, a Minister is able to unilaterally make such a decision to refuse funding in a totally arbitrary and capricious fashion, totally ignoring any and all objective considerations to the contrary (this is highly doubted - even the PM does not have the power to simply do whatever he pleases - unless you let them get away with it).

But they ought not to do it relying on such a document as altered.

And, if it were at her arbitrary discretion why would she need such an altered document or rely on it.

Also, Bev Oda stating at Committee that she did not know who altered it a very narrow statement of denial. It is not hard to imagine that the Minister might be shielded from knowing so they can give such answer. If it was changed by the PMO she might be able to say she doesn't know who, in actuality, changed it, although she may be aware of the ultimate source.

Perhaps Oda, or whomever else is in a position to actually say, should have been asked what happened to the document after she and the other two had signed it and into whose hands it fell. It seems to me that a Minister has a duty and obligation to be forthcoming with information in order to shed light on the circumstance and foster transparency, as opposed to obscuration and obfuscation.

There are a lot of unanswered questions that all Canadians have a right to know.

Harper stonewalling is simply reprehensible and indicates, yet again, the Con's uber partisan approach to everything and that when push come to shove, Harper can not be trusted to do the right (morally) thing, to put his obligations as PM above grasping and maintaining power.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Con Close Race Conversions in Upcoming Federal Election - Solution: Con-solidation

http://2closetocall.blogspot.com/2011/02/close-races-do-they-really-not-matter.html
Close races: really not important?
Published by Bryan Breguet
8 Feb.'11

I think that the dynamics occurring in 'close races' is far too complex to simply look at the conversions in past elections to predict conversions in an upcoming election.

For example, if the support for the two parties has solidified in a riding and are essentially equal, with the other party(ies) not in play, then a conversion may be indicative of good organization and good financing.

This kind of situation can be identified since 'close race' should be fairly easily predicted in advance (obviously since the support is solidified and essentially equal)

If this is a common thread then, it may be indicative of a better chance of conversion, but in such circumstances.

It is something like predicting the outcomes of a play-off series in hockey between equally matched teams - if one has greater stamina over the span of the series, or play better at home, etc., then it may be they are favoured.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

continued . . .


. . . continued

Another situation where the support of two parties is solidified and equal a third party 'going up the middle' to win. This type of race has a tendency to be close if for no other reason than the votes are spread around to at least three parties.

The third party here is an underdog. Presumably the two leaders were equal in all regards and battled to a draw.

In this case it is not clear that the third party's win can be attributed to anything the third party did except be a viable third party. It may also be that the conversion rate is fairly constant from one election to another or even independent of party.

The big thing here is not predicting the conversion rate but predicting the number of ridings fitting into this scenario, which may be dependent on the overall picture at election time - e.g. the degree of polarization generally, and willingness of supporters to compromise and consolidate.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

continued . . .


. . . continued

On the other hand, if the riding turned out to be a 'close race' but support was not solidified and equal to start with, then there must have been some factor/issue in the election generally or the riding in particular that caused a significant shift. That this shift would end up in essentially the same number of votes for both parties seems to be to a considerable extent a co-incidence. In other words, it was really not a 'close race' conversion at all.

Of course, the parties would want to study just exactly what caused that shift and what to do about it, but it can not be classified as a 'close race' conversion.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

continued . . .


. . . continued

A good example of this is the by-election in Vaughan, although it was just outside 'close race'. In this the Con vote, in absolute terms, stayed pretty much the same, but the Lib vote decreased by 10,000*, this resulted in a Con victory, which could very well have been a 'close race' except for happenstance.


This is not an anomaly that can be waved off as just one of those things. In the '08 election the Lib's vote decreased by 800,000 - 900,000*. Many attribute it to the Dion factor, including his Green policy. I strongly suspect that a number of close races in BC fell into this category.

It is my impression that the above model is supported by a lot of the various Parties strategies both before and during an election.

(*these numbers are based on my recollection and the reader can confirm for themselves, but I think they are fairly good, especially for the purposes to which they are being employed here).

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper Manipulate the Political Polls - That Sounds Plausible

Submitted: 7:21 am, PST, 14 Feb.'11
Pollsters advise voters to be wary of polls ahead of possible spring vote, By: Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press, The Winnipeg Free Press, 02/13/2011
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/pollsters-advise-voters-to-be-wary-of-polls-
ahead-of-possible-spring-vote-116112554.html

"There's broad consensus among pollsters that proliferating political polls suffer from a combination
of methodological problems, commercial pressures and an unhealthy relationship with the media.

Start with the methodological morass.

'The dirty little secret of the polling business . . . is that our ability to yield results
accurately from samples that reflect the total population has probably never been worse in the 30 to
35 years that the discipline has been active in Canada,' says veteran pollster Allan Gregg, chairman
of Harris-Decima which provides political polling for The Canadian Press."

"Liberal party pollster Michael Marzolini's . . . worries the plethora of shoddy media polls, an annoyance between elections, can be self-fulfilling during a campaign. . . .
'the only movement in the polls is in fact motivated by the previous polls.'"


This revelation by the Polling Industry, coming just before an election (possibly) is quite interesting.

So, there is a lack of accuracy and responsibility associated with the generation of political polls and the dissemination.

This is, of course, very important given the attention that is paid to political polls by the voting population.

The potential for abuse and manipulation of the voters is significant.

If a political party had lots of money, especially lots more than the others. They could intimate that they have lots of money to spend on polls and if they were not too discerning as to accuracy, but more on whether they are favourable . . . according to this article, who knows, perhaps their wish would come true.

Then if they had lots of money to spend on media they could inundate the voters with these 'independent' polls and thus a misleading impression is created. Given the money being spent, the media might not be too eager to insist on warranties of accuracy either, and why should they.

Given that, as we have all seen:

- Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in recent history.

- Harper and the Con's do and say everything for political gain only. Truth, integrity, decency, fairness have no place with them . They are only concerned with grabbing onto power and maintaining it, at any cost, without a care for Canada.

- The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of distortion, cover-up, duplicity, deception, obscuration and obfuscation, suppression of truth and, slandering, mud slinging and character assassination in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues.

- Harper and the Cons' are far ahead of the other parties in fund raising and seem to have a unlimited source of support from a core (33%) of die-hard supporters, epi-centred in Alberta.

Is it any wonder that the the Liberal Party pollster is raising this issue.

Also, apparently there is concern Harper is stacking the CRTC because there is a decision coming down that would remove the obligation of any broadcaster or newspaper to fact-check stories or be accurate in their coverage as long as the reporting does not endanger lives. (G&M, 4 Feb.'11)

Boy, that seems to 'dovetail' quite nicely with the above scenario.

I am not sure these political polls will endanger lives.

But, they certain could endanger Canadians way of life, that our forefathers built of many generation with their blood sweat and tears and Harper is so ruthlessly and relentlessly is tearing asunder.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- StatsCan Performs Too Important a Roll in Canada to be Corrupted by Harper

Posted: 1:20 PM on February 13, 2011 The Globe and Mail
Chief statistician asked to rethink census for 2016
Steven Chase and Tavia Grant, The Globe and Mail, Feb. 11, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/chief-statistician-asked-to-rethink-census-for-2016/article1904832/

"When it comes to the 2011 census, however, Mr. Smith said he is sure about one thing: there’s no justification for critics to say that moving to a voluntary long-form survey will wreck the quality of the data.

'I’m asking Canadians to suspend judgment because there’s no scientific basis for saying this is going to be fundamentally flawed.'


'There is no scientific reason why you would say before it even starts, before I see results, that there’s going to necessarily be a significant problem with the count of Inuit or Métis or immigrants beyond the levels we’ve seen in the 2006 census.'"

It is quite surprising that the head of StatsCan would put such an assertion in absolute terms - vis.:

"no scientific basis for saying this is going to be fundamentally flawed"; and,

"There is no scientific reason why you would say before it even starts . . . going to necessarily be a significant problem".

The statements attributed to Wayne Smith in this article are the type of statement, highly partisan and political, you would expect from Tony Clement or Stephen Harper in an effort to obscure and obfuscate the real underlying issues - not the least of which is political interference and loss of trust in Stascana and the result of the Census.

I would not expect them from a scientifically trained professional, and certainly not from the Chief Statistician of StatsCan.

When you consider the expense in doing the Census, their importance to good government and the private sector, a risk-benefit analysis is in order - vis.:

'What are the chances that the change made to the Long From Census may result in less accurate information. Then, is it worth this risk.'

This is the very nature of what Statisticians do and are trained for. This is precisely the type of thing StatsCan is there for.


An applicable absolutism is:

StatsCan ought not to make such changes if they are unable to answer, and in advance, precisely the issue Smith has so extremized - i.e. 'what are the chances the results will be fundamentally flawed, a significant problem'

Otherwise they, or should I more accurately state, Harper, Clement and the Con's are literally rolling the dice with Canada's future.

It seems to me that any self respecting, objective, disinterested scientist would understand this.

If StatsCan is unable to make such evaluations, under Wayne Smith, then he simply ought to hand over the reigns to someone who can 'make it so'.

Munir Sheikh, Canada’s former chief statistician at StatsCan, wrote, when he resigned, a very insightful article regarding the problems with the changes enforced by Clement and Harper.

They raise an issue of the quality of the results - i.e.

- " Quality means that the data Statistics Canada releases must accurately reflect the phenomena it is trying to capture"

- "The other element of quality is trust in Statistics Canada’s numbers. "

"By making a decision on a technical issue – which the government has every right to do under the current legislation – the government risks the creation of a trust gap.

It takes ages to establish credibility. It takes much less to tarnish it.

The issue of Statistics Canada’s independence is a serious matter,"
(Munir Sheikh, G&M, 10 Aug.'10)

StatsCan performs too important a roll in Canada to be corrupted by Harper and the Con's.

They have already done a lot of damage.

All Canadians should do a cost -benefit analysis of the Harper reign and I am confident if they do Harper will get the boot.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- If It Looks Like A Harper and It Smells Like A Harper Can We Really Be Surprised If It Is A Harper

Submitted: 8:46am & 9:11am, PST, 12 Feb.'11 The Toronto Star
Professors fight back in information war, Susan Delacourt Ottawa Bureau, The Toronto Star, 11 Feb.'11,
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/937569--professors-fight-back-in-information-war?bn=1

"The federal Conservative party has said, through spokesman Fred DeLorey, that it is not behind the file-hunting expedition. Dimitri Soudas, communications director for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said 'the PMO did not file these freedom of information requests,' though he added: 'There’s nothing wrong with filing such requests, media and all Canadians can do it under the law'"

It is common knowledge that Harper and the Con's simply can't be taken at his, or their, word. Harper simply can't be trusted.

Harper and the Con Party denying that they made the access to information (ATI) requests means nothing.

In fact, their statements are so narrow that it suggests that they may very well have knowledge of them. It also does not mean that they are not intending to use them or benefit from their use or if any an opportunity arose in the future that they wouldn't use it.

Dimitri Soudas “There’s nothing wrong with filing such requests, media and all Canadians can do it under the law”

Another clue is that whenever Harper is caught in an embarrassing situation, he always claims that "it's ok, everyone else does it". Coming out up front with this kind of statement suggests they may very well have some knowledge of it, some kind of involvement.

Of course, one need only apply the rule - if you want to know who is responsible, look at who benefits.

The chances that they are not politically motivated are remote. If you get that far there is no other political faction in Canada that could possibly benefit than Harper and eth Con's.

Also, it is the type of thing that you would expect from right-wing extremists and falls perfectly in line with the Harper style of extremist politics where vicious personal attacks on people's characters, insult, insinuation, bold, emotionally charged insinuation and allegation are the name of the game

It is clear from this article that the information requested, to a very large extent, is outside that covered by the ATI and that it was politically motivated and intended for very questionable purposes.

If the information requested it is not covered by ATI then why would the Act require the names of the person requesting it be confidential, or at least to the extent that the information requested is not covered by the Act.

If the information is outside the Act then in that regard it is as if I had received the request and why would I be required to not reveal the requestor. Also, if the University won't simply release it why couldn't someone, or at least the subject of the request, do an Access To Information Request to get it.

It seems like a non sequitur that someone could request all that personal information about a person but not have to reveal to that person whom they are.

Surely Parliament could not have intended the name of the requestor, especially to the extent the request is outside the Act, be considered confidential vis-a-vis the person who is the subject of the request.

Since, as we can see, this allows for serious abuse. If so, this is an aspect of the law that ought to be reviewed.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Another Harper Con - Will It Ever End

Submited: 7:43am, PST, 11 Feb.'11 CBC News
Gas tax changes for QC arena 'desperation': Liberals
Mayors balk at idea, saying money has already been spent, February 9, 2011, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2011/02/09/liberals-sayquebec-city-arena-funding-will-corner-mayors.html

"federal gas tax revenues to be used for construction of "large entertainment centres" such as the proposed new Quebec City arena.

Cities and towns across the country currently share an annual pot of just over $2 billion from the federal gas taxes collected at the pumps.

While municipalities are free to pick their own projects, the federal government stipulates the gas-tax money can only be used for infrastructure such as roads, sewers and water treatment systems."

Sounds like a 'Con con' to me.

Nothing but a shill by Harper and the Con's - it may be that Harper, himself, didn't float this idea but neither Harper, Flaherty or any other Con are being very vocal about denying it.

The whole purpose is to con people, in particular voters in and around Quebec City, to think that somehow the Arena is the result of Harper and the Con being in power.

The reason that Harper would do this is purely partisan, with no consideration of what is best for all Canadians throughout all of Canada.

As everyone knows, it is to preserve and/or gain seats in and around Quebec.

$2 billion a years of federal gas tax revenues go towards roads, sewers and water treatment. So, each dollar that is allowed for arenas is one dollar less all Cities in Canada have for these things.

There was good reason Paul Martin and the Liberals introduced the idea of federal gas tax revenues being used by Cities for infrastructure such as roads, sewers and water treatment systems - they are vital to any City and, simply put, they desperately need the funds for these things.

It is only too bad that Harper was not more responsible about the deficit spending going towards these things - as opposed to maximizing votes for the Con's using money borrowed by Canadians.

This may come as a surprise to Harper and the Con's but there may be some Cities in Canada and some people living in these Cities that would prefer to have roads, sewers and water treatment over Harper and the Con's in power.

An Arena in Quebec City is also important but as we saw on Thursday, the total $400 million can be funded by the City and the Province of Quebec from other funds. It would not be surprising if they would accept Federal funding but perhaps the reason Jean Charest made the announcement yesterday - the Province of Quebec and Quebec City simply do not want to be associated with such a partisan, self-interested and narrow manipulation.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Stop, You're Both 'Right' - Well, Ignatieff 'Morally' and Harper 'Ideologically, in the extreme', that is

Posted: 10:42 AM on February 10, 2011 The Globe and Mail
Michael Ignatieff, Don’t deal away our sovereignty
Michael Ignatieff, 10 Feb.'11, Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/dont-deal-away-our-sovereignty/article1901070/

Ignatieff is right (morally, that is).

Certainly as between Harper and Ignatieff, Ignatieff has the experience, and lack of bias and partisan self-interest, to understand the extent to which our rights as Canadian citizens are being put in harm's way, and totally in secret by Harper.

It is common knowledge that everything Harper and the Con's do is totally, and to the extreme, partisan. He can't be taken at his word or trusted even when he is professing to be 'open and transparent'.

God help us, when Harper can hide behind Cabinet confidentiality to make such intrusive and far reaching policy.

We should all smell a rat here (G&M, 6 Feb.'11)

We can be sure Harper will do the 'right' thing - ideologically right-wing extremist thing.

The Beyond Borders Working Group will be jointly managed by the Privy Council Office . . .

The Privy Counsel Office is the secretariat of the Cabinet, thus covered by Cabinet confidentiality and directly controlled by the Prime Minister.

Not only will Canadians not have an input, either directly or through their elected representatives, we will not even know what is going on.

This does not bode well for a free, tolerant, open Democratic society or the values that have been built up through the blood sweat and tears of our forefathers and passed down to us as the current custodians, to be improved upon and passed onto to our children.

We ought not trust Harper on this, or anything, which his track record so painfully demonstrates (keep in mind, this is the guy that uses vicious, personal attack ads to promote his cause, as opposed to the rational, what best for all Canadians approach - is this the kind of person we a want negotiating our personal rights and freedoms, especially in secret)

Obama: "I have great confidence that Prime Minister Harper's going to be very protective of certain core values of Canada"

This reveals an incredible misunderstanding by Obama of the Canadian political dynamics, probably stemming from the attitude of "it's all about US".

There is little doubt that Harper will be very protective of 'certain core values', he always is, after all.

The problem is that the 'certain core values' of Harper are the right-wing extremist values held by a small % of Canadians (approx.33%) with epi-centre in Alberta - the ones that support Harper pretty much no matter what, as long as he gives them what they want, and keep him and the Con's in power - as long as the Moderate Majority do not consolidate.

Ignatieff is correct to raise the issue that core Canadian values are likely to be brought into jeopardy by the US - the US doesn't do anything unless its hugely biased in their favour. Anyone who has studied how the US conducts it's International affairs knows this.

Relying on Harper to protect Canadian values as a whole is also ludicrous given Harper's abdication of authority, shirking of responsibility and Kowtow'g to the US, in particular the extremist right wing, in just about everything- Harper's Con'ism is merely a branch office of the US right-wing extremist movement, after all.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Harper's $16b on 65 F-35's for 'Security Reasons' - Yah 'Right', Think Again.

Posted: 1:15 PM on February 8, 2011, The Globe and Mail
Cost of promoting sole-source fighter-jet purchase nears $200,000, Daniel Leblanc, Globe and Mail, February 8, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/cost-of-promoting-sole-source-fighter-jet-purchase-nears-200000/article1898443/

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates:
"Our partners are needed, obviously, because the more quantity you buy, the price-per-copy will drop," (Google.com, AFP – 26 Jan.'11)

(that's right the same Gates that has taken such an interest in the estimated $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan - NYT, 13 Jun.'10 - don't tell me the US is there for their resources - the devil you say)

So, Canada buying the F-35 is for financial reasons

It is shocking that former Canadian air force general Paul Manson, one of Harper main spokespersons promoting the F-35's, might at one time have been president of Lockheed Martin Canada. (Chronicle Herald, 7 Feb.'11)

And while Manson is clearing the air, he might want to confirm that he has, or had, or intends to have, at any relevant time, no personal financial interest, either, like shares in the company, interest in contracts, or otherwise

So much for the "Canada's security" argument

But

There are indications that Harper wants to back down on this - vis.:

"saying 'no' to spending more money on new things we can’t afford." (Harper speech, 21 Jan.'11)
and, the MacKay jumping ship rumour a month or so ago.

But that

MacKay would likely resign causing serious division in the ranks of the Con party, especially in Nova Scotia

And

It would go against the wishes of the core of die-hard, right-wing extremist supporters of Harper, epi-centred in Alberta, who may also directly benefit

("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)", 'Hey Big Spender, why don't you spend a little time with us - Explaining the 16B for 65 F35's', 25 Aug.'10, Lloyd MacILquham)

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

You betcha the $16 billion on 65 F-35's will be an election issue - do Con's con

Submitted: 10:15am, PST, 7 Feb.'11 The Chronicle Herald

Purchase of jets a real election issue, Scott Taylor On Target, Mon, Feb 7, The Chronicle Herald
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1226357.html

Reality:

Gates said: "Our partners are needed, obviously, because the more quantity you buy, the price-per-copy will drop,"

Well, that doesn't square.

Either we need the 65 F-35's in order to save the US some money or we need it for our country's security, now which is it.

Reality:

"We need this aircraft," - Yah, like we need a $16 billion dollar and counting hole in the fiscal well-being of Canada.

"While Manson may have been telling the truth as he sees it, unfortunately he did not tell the whole truth about his career credentials. While he was indeed once the chief of the defence staff for the Canadian Forces and a top project officer on the acquisition of the air force’s current fleet of CF-18 fighter aircraft, Manson forgot to mention his post-military stint as the president of Lockheed Martin Canada."

It is shocking that Manson, one of Harper main proponents of the F-35's, might not reveal his personal connection to one of the manufacturers of the F-35.

While Manson is clearling the air, he might want to confirm that he has no personal financial interest, either, like shares in the company, interest in contracts, or otherwise.

Reality:

The Canadian military have no right, nor mandate, to hold a secret agenda, or an agenda that is not for the benefit of Canadians or Canadians' national and International aspirations. The Prime Minister has no right, nor mandate, either to formulate such.

If the F-35 procurement is not in line with the above, the honourable thing to do for the military would be to stand up and state categorically that they do not support it. It does not do for them to keep quiet or even encourage such expenditures simple because they may be the benefactors.

Conversely, simply because it benefits the military does not make it right (morally, although it may be 'Right' ideologically). Simply because it is what Harper wants doesn't make it the aspiration of all Canadians - or at least the Moderate Majority (66%)

Based on public knowledge it is ludicrous to suggest that the F-35's are for the benefit of Canadians or Canadians' national and International aspirations.

As far as spending is concerned there are many matters that take priority over purchasing F-35's that would also entail keeping the money in Canada as well as actually directly benefiting all Canadians and Canada as a nation. I can give you one example that doesn't fit this bill - spending $10's billions of expanding prison facilities.

Reality

The people serving the military are military states

The military serving the Prime Minister are dictatorships

Democracies are where both the military and the Prime Minister serve the people.


Reality:
Canada really Needs:
To bring back Democracy to Canada and give Harper, MacKay and all the other Con's the boot.


You betcha the $16 billion on 65 F-35's will be an election issue.

But, there are indications that Harper wants to back down on this - vis.:
"saying 'no' to spending more money on new things we can’t afford." (Harper speech, 21 Jan.'11)
and, the MacKay jumping ship rumour a month or so ago.

- Peter MacKay would likely resign causing serious division in the ranks of the Con party, especially in Nova Scotia because that is where MacKay has his seat
- it would go against the wishes of the core of die-hard, right-wing extremist supporters of Harper, epi-centred in Alberta, who may also directly benefit.

("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)", 'Hey Big Spender, why don't you spend a little time with us - Explaining the 16B for 65 F35's', 25 August, 2010, Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html)

Perhaps, Harper is waiting until the midst of an election to minimize this and maximize the PR value.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Compare Harper's Resume to Ignatieff's - Now, That's A Great Idea for a 'Counter' Attack Ad

Submitted: 7:10am, PST, 7 Feb.'11 The Toronto Star
War room runs amok, Feb 7 2011, Gerry Nicholls
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/933835--war-room-runs-amok

It seems to me if each time Harper came out with one of these attack ads, Canadians simply replied with - ok, Stevo, lets see your Resume and we'll compare it to Ignatieff's - Harper would move on to something else.

Harper has spent a much greater part of his carrier as a right-wing, extremist ideologue, bent on tearing this great nation of ours asunder than Ignatieff has spent outside Canada.

Ignatieff has spent his career championing human rights, tolerance and what makes a Democratic country function in a modern, complex, economy based society, enjoying a very celebrated, illustrious career on the International stage.

Harper has spent his career advocating building firewalls around Alberta, dismantling Canada as a nation and promoting extremist Con values that are no more than a throwback to a dark-age where totalitarianism was the rule.

Harper's only claim to fame is that he has a core (33%) of die-hard, right-wing extremists, epi-centred in Alberta that will support him pretty much no mater what (the Silent Minority) - provided Harper tows the line, with no consideration as to what is good for Canada as a whole, that keep Harper in power as long as the Moderate Majority do not consolidate.

These attack ads are the old PR principle of promoting your weakness until it is a strength.

All the attack ads may be interpreted in this fashion - an attack in an emotionally vicious fashion intended to distract from a fundamental weakness of Harper and the Con's and imprint on the psyche a totally distorted message.

They are also designed to arouse Harper die-hard supporters and dishearten the Moderate Majority until they decide not to vote - compare Vaughan.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- A foul Odour from Harper's Policies - What Again, Stevo - Guess It's Time to Clean House

Posted: 12:36 PM on February 6, 2011 The Globe and Mail
Integrated border proposal looms as key election issue John Ibbitson, Bill Curry and Paul Koring, Globe and Mail, Feb. 06, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/integrated-border-proposal-looms-as-key-election-issue/article1895710/

"NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar . . . 'We just don’t trust Harper to go and negotiate on behalf of our country alone and that’s why we smell a rat here', ' We just don’t trust this government to be on the right side of defending our resources, our border communities and our privacy.'"


We should all smell a rat here

We can be sure he will do the 'right' thing - ideologically right-wing extremist thing.

The Beyond Borders Working Group will be jointly managed by the Privy Council Office . . .

The Privy Counsel Office is the secretariat of the Cabinet, thus covered by Cabinet confidentiality and directly controlled by the Prime Minister.

Not only will Canadians not have an input, either directly or through their elected representatives, we will not even know what is going on.

This does not bode well for a free, tolerant, open Democratic society or the values that have been built up through the blood sweat and tears of our forefathers and passed down to us as the current custodians, to be improved upon and passed onto to our children.

We ought not trust Harper on this, or anything, which his track record so painfully demonstrates (keep in mind, this is the guy that uses vicious, personal attack ads to promote his cause, as opposed to the rational, what best for all Canadians approach - is this the kind of person we a want negotiating our personal rights and freedoms, especially in secret)

Obama: "I have great confidence that Prime Minister Harper's going to be very protective of certain core values of Canada"

This reveals an incredible misunderstanding by Obama of the Canadian political dynamics, probably stemming from the attitude of "it's all about US".

There is little doubt that Harper will be very protective of 'certain core values', he always is, after all.

The problem is that the 'certain core values' of Harper are the right-wing extremist values held by a small % of Canadians (approx.33%) with epi-centre in Alberta - the ones that support Harper pretty much no matter what, as long as he gives them what they want, and keep him and the Con's in power - as long as the Moderate Majority do not consolidate.

Ignatieff is correct to raise the issue that core Canadian values are likely to be brought into jeopardy by the US - the US doesn't do anything unless its hugely biased in their favour. Anyone who has studied how the US conducts it's International affairs knows this.

Relying on Harper to protect Canadian values as a whole is also ludicrous given Harper's abdication of authority, shirking of responsibility and Kowtow'g to the US, in particular the extremist right wing, in just about everything- Harper's Con'ism is merely a branch office of the US right-wing extremist movement, after all.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Something Rotten in the State of Harper-dom

11:47 AM on February 5, 2011

CRTC appointment smacks of cronyism, NDP says, Gloria Galloway, Globe and Mail, February 4, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/crtc-appointment-smacks-of-cronyism-ndp-says/article1895426/

This is an important article covering a very important issue of the Harper reign - politically corrupting Canada's once highly regarded Institutions and rigging them to benefit the Harper style of extremist politics where vicious personal attacks on people's characters, insult, insinuation, bold, emotionally charged insinuation and allegation are the name of the game and honesty, rationally based presentation and objectively presented, undistorted facts simply have no play.

Harper, if he's anything, he's insideous.


“'Mr. Pentefountas went through the selection process ran by the Department of Canadian Heritage and PCO and was determined to be the best candidate,'”

. . .

"The job description for the position, . . . says successful candidates should have a degree or job experience in a related field of study to the CRTC, as well as senior-level decision-making experience, familiarity with the regulator’s framework and knowledge of the broadcasting industry. "

"Mr. Soudas and Mr. Pentefountas are friends "

Something not squaring here

NDP knew in December that Mr. Pentefountas would be appointed???

Perhaps it was just a lucky guess - what do you think.

On the other hand, if their sources were right (morally that is) on that. Perhaps they were right on the proper vetting process not being followed for Mr. Pentefountas and that there were, apparently, at least three others that had actual and direct experience - i.e. existing CRTC commissioners.

It would be interesting to see why they were not chosen, especially if Mr. Pentefountas does not have the experience set out in the job description.

Seems that there is an easy way to end any doubts

Lets see Mr. Pentefountas' Resume.

Lets see why the other three CRTC Commissioners were not chosen.

Surely, given that it is a public Board, governs a $60billion dollar industry and has such a profound effect on all our lives, that's not too much to require.

Inquiring Canadians do have a right to know.

Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in recent history that they have no hesitation in using no matter how reprehensible and morally and secularly dishonest, approaching Canadians on an emotional, fogged level, with a total disregard for the truth.

Harper and the Con's do and say everything for political gain only. Truth, integrity, decency, fairness have no place with them . They are only concerned with grabbing onto power and maintaining it, at any cost, without a care for Canada.

The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of distortion, cover-up, duplicity, deception, obscuration and obfuscation, suppression of truth and, slandering, mud slinging and character assassination in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues. Their attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the dank ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.

Politically tainting the CRTC fits well within Harperian politics, strategically that just leaves Statscan - oh, sorry he's already done that.

"The Prime Minister’s Office wants friendly faces on the CTRC because there is a decision coming down that would remove the obligation of any broadcaster or newspaper to fact-check stories or be accurate in their coverage as long as the reporting does not endanger lives, Mr. Angus said. "

That's incredible and It's incredible how well that fits in with the Harper Attack Ads ideology and

The Flanagan Fundamental Principle of Con'ism: “It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible". It need only contain strong emotional and be devoid of rational content.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Peter MacKay Not one of Canada's Best Citizens - You Got That Right

Space is the place for Peter MacKay and Marc Garneau to bicker, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail, February 3, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/space-is-the-place-for-peter-mackay-and-marc-garneau-to-bicker/article1893650/

Peter MacKay: “Canadians can always count on this government to do the right thing when it comes to giving the best equipment to the best citizens, who are the members of the Canadian Forces. "

Am I reading this right (morally that is) . . . Canada's best citizens are in the armed forces???

I resent that remark.

And,

I would be very surprised if any members of the armed forces went around thinking they were better than everyone else in Canada. Everyone that I ever heard speaking were actually quite humble and honoured to serve (the people of Canada, that is).

Where does MacKay, as Minister of National Defence, get off saying something like this.

Oh and by the way, did I mention Peter MacKay regrets "not having had the opportunity to serve [his] country in uniform"

Well Peter two things:

If you are saying that you are not one of Canada's "best citizens" you've sure got that right.

And,

Just exactly why did you not have the opportunity to serve your country anyway and, hay, why not now. Give everyone in Canada a break, resign your seat and go join the army.

It does give insight into why MacKay, without justification, is insisting that the armed forces get F-35 'eye watering technology' - at the 'eye watering cost'

Not because it fits in with Canadians needs for their military or that it fits in with Canadians or Canadians' national and International aspirations.

MacKay obviously feels that the reason that Canadians should spend $16 billion, and counting, is because the military are first class citizens and the rest of us are here to cater to their whims.

Simply because it benefits the military does not make it right (morally, although it may be 'Right' ideologically). Simply because it is what Harper wants doesn't make it the aspiration of all Canadians - or at least the Moderate Majority (66%)

Based on public knowledge it is ludicrous to suggest that the F-35's are for the benefit of Canadians or Canadians' national and International aspirations.

As far as spending is concerned there are many matters that take priority over purchasing F-35's that would also entail keeping the money in Canada as well as actually directly benefiting all Canadians and Canada as a nation. I can give you one example that doesn't fit this bill - spending $10's billions of expanding prison facilities.
Mr. MacKay:

The people serving the military are military states

The military serving the Prime Minister are dictatorships

Democracies are where both the military and the Prime Minister serve the people.

Let's bring back Democracy to Canada give Harper, MacKay and all the other Con's the boot.

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- 'May the Best Funded Party Win' - Is That What It Means To Be Canadian?

No comments allowed:
Conservatives pull another political ad, Laura Stone, Postmedia News February 1, 2011
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Conservatives+pull+another+political/4206573/story.html

What are the odds that the Conservatives would raise the same amount of money in 2009 and 2010.

Is it a co-incidence or a manifestation of :

The core of die-hard right wing, extremist supporters (33%) epi-centred in Alberta that provide the funds and support that keep him in power.

Too bad that donations under $200 are not made public. That would make very interesting reading indeed.

"There are no limits on how much money is spent on advertising and other operational expenses before an election has been called."

But that means, if you know when the election will be and you have an indefatigable source of funding you can totally thwart the purpose of Election spending caps - now that leaves things open to manipulation and abuse.

Given:

- the amount of funds Harper and the Con's have and their apparently indefatigable source

- Harper and the Con's have built the most sophisticated propaganda machine seen in Western Democracies in recent History

- Guy Giorno has been appointed as Conservative campaign chair

- "Money is golden in a political campaign . . . It sounds silly, but these [higher production values and look fancier] are important things when it comes to getting the public to believe what you're saying,"" (McLoughlin.)

- Flanagan Fundamental Principle of Con'ism is all about - “It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible". It need only contain strong emotional and be devoid of rational content.

Get ready for Harper and the Con's to wage the dirtiest campaign ever seen in the anals of Canadian history, up there with the right-wing extremists in the US

And, get ready for another stint of Harper and the Con's not because they are better at running the country, I think it is a forgone conclusion they are the worst thing to happen to Confederation, ever, but because of the 33% die-hard extremists who support Harper pretty much no matter what.


"Before an election, parties generally use advertisements to send out feelers, said Laura Stephenson, a political-science professor at the University of Western Ontario."

Anyone who thinks that Harper and the Con's have not polled and focus grouped all the issues, and research how best to skewer, before they craft their attack ads simply does not understand how Harper and the Con's operate and what $17m a years means.

These attack ads are not balloons being floated to gauge some kind of reaction. They are very carefully and skillfully designed to attack on a very personal level and undermine credibility in th eminds of the public. There is no guess work about them.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

- Get ready for the dirtiest Con campaign ever waged in the anals of Canadian history

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/931180--harper-sets-stage-for-commons-showdown
Back to Harper sets stage for Commons showdown
Harper sets stage for Commons showdown
January 31, 2011
Les Whittington and Richard Brennan

Guy Giorno appointed as Conservative campaign chair???

Get ready for the dirtiest Con campaign ever waged in the anals of Canadian history, up there with the right-wing extremists in the US



Harper's reduction of the corporate tax is ideological, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with any proclaimed interest in creating jobs or of helping the people of Canada.

Harper also is not interested in co-operating or listening, in any honest fashion, to what the opposition leaders have to say and the budget, despite Harper and the Con's representing a mere 33% of the Canadian people, will not be a compromise but will be one more nail in the coffin of Canadian Con'ism.

"Five reasons to say no to more corporate tax cuts", Armine Yalnizyan, G&M, 28 Jan.'11:

Corp tax cuts rewards corp's whether they create jobs or not. Also, much of the profits will flow outside Canada due to foreign ownership, creating jobs elsewhere

- Least effective job creation measure
infrastructure and income supports for the unemployed and low income Canadians 8 times bigger impact than cutting corp. taxes.

- Little Impact on investments
From 2000 - 2010
Corp tax fallen from 28% to 18%
Business investment (in non-residential structures and equipment): 12.4% GDP to 12.4% GDP

- Pay more tax to cut taxes
reducing tax rtaes from 22.12% to 15% reduces the size of the public purse by $13.7-billion annually by 2012
Estimated deficit in 2012 will be between $21- and $26-billion
Financing this tax cut requires borrowing more money.

- False economies
Infrastructure - hundreds of billions are needed
Corp's are not responsible for Infrastructure - roads, bridges, etc., the government is, we are, more importantly our children will be

- The question of working capital
Canadian corp have increased their capital surpluses even in the recession.
They already have the surpluses to create jobs, if that is in the cards.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html