Submitted: 9:27am, PDT, 30 Apr.'11 CBC
Re-submitted: 1:01pm, PDT, 30Apr.'11 CBC go figure
NDP cap-and-trade plan would hike gas prices: Pembina
CBC News Posted: Apr 29, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/29/cv-election-ndp-gas-prices.html#
I might, but I have to buy food and cloths for my family.
Just look at who is benefiting from these unheard of prices and you'll learn who Harper is in it for.
Its certainly not the manufacturing industry of Ontario and Quebec
and it's certainly not for Canadians who are poised to be hit by another economic tsunami
"Gross domestic product declined 0.2 per cent . . . The weakness in manufacturing is directly tied to the strong Canadian dollar and the slow U.S. Recovery." (G&M, 29 Apr.'11)
Our recovery is directly tied to the US.
(I know, I know, you all thought it was the 'do-nothing' policies of Flaherty and Harper)
Keep in mind, if we believe Harper that his reckless spending in the last couple years actually had a positive impact on the economy, albeit much less than ought to have been realized from the amount spent, this impact is coming to an end - I pray
We are faced with, yet another, perfect wave scenario:
- unheard of, sky-is-the-limit increased costs of Gas.
- unheard of, sky-is-the-limit increased costs of goods, especially food and the necessities of life
- reduced demand from the US causing decrease in exports and thus manufacturing.
- increased Can dollar due to Oil prices causing decrease in exports and thus manufacturing.
What is the Harper government doing to protect us from this
Nothing.
That's the Harper economic policy in a word - "do-nothing"
Just look at his budget, and the Harper campaign promises.
Or, in the immoral (sorry, slip of the pen, I meant to write, immortal . . ., or not)
words of Jim Flaherty: "de nada"
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
30 April, 2011
- Harper on a Good Day, can't be Believed. But, on a Good 'Con' Day, All Trustworthiness Is Cast Aside
submitted: 9:09am, PDT, 30 Apr.'11 CBC
NDP cap-and-trade plan would hike gas prices: Pembina
CBC News Posted: Apr 29, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/29/cv-election-ndp-gas-prices.html#
It is just counter-intuitive a Cap-and-Trade system would not add to the cost of gas at the pump.
But,
If Harper says $.10 a litre I feel very confident that it would, in reality, be much less.
If $.10 a litre were a reasonable estimate, Harper would, on a good day, be claiming it would add $.15 cents, and on a good Con day, claiming $.20
The question about Cap and Trade is whether the system put in place is revenue neutral
Right now it is the price of gas that we must be concerned about.
The biggest threat to our recovering economy is the increases in Oil and Gas and the inevitable sky-rocketing costs of everything else because of it
Not only do the previously undreamt of prices at the pump suck the money money right out of our pockets like someone stuck a vacuum cleaner in them
But also, the money flows outside Canada to some of the largest and wealthiest International Companies in the world
Exxon Mobil Corp. "led an investor-friendly but politically charged oil industry earnings parade Thursday with its quarterly profit of $10.7-billion (U.S.)." (G&M, 29 Apr.'11)
- that's after tax - why do they need a tax break, I need a Petrol break.
and the cost of everything increases accordingly since it takes gas to get the raw materials to the factory and the value added goods to the consumer.
Along with the inflation will come loss of jobs, reduced standard of living, increase in the number of families that can't make ends meet
It's just that simple.
Harper's strategy can be summed up in three words:
Nada-Nada-Nyet
'Nada' for the tax the Oil companies should pay
'Nada' for the regulation towards environmental control
and
'Nyet' for the help to Canadians who need it.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
NDP cap-and-trade plan would hike gas prices: Pembina
CBC News Posted: Apr 29, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/29/cv-election-ndp-gas-prices.html#
It is just counter-intuitive a Cap-and-Trade system would not add to the cost of gas at the pump.
But,
If Harper says $.10 a litre I feel very confident that it would, in reality, be much less.
If $.10 a litre were a reasonable estimate, Harper would, on a good day, be claiming it would add $.15 cents, and on a good Con day, claiming $.20
The question about Cap and Trade is whether the system put in place is revenue neutral
Right now it is the price of gas that we must be concerned about.
The biggest threat to our recovering economy is the increases in Oil and Gas and the inevitable sky-rocketing costs of everything else because of it
Not only do the previously undreamt of prices at the pump suck the money money right out of our pockets like someone stuck a vacuum cleaner in them
But also, the money flows outside Canada to some of the largest and wealthiest International Companies in the world
Exxon Mobil Corp. "led an investor-friendly but politically charged oil industry earnings parade Thursday with its quarterly profit of $10.7-billion (U.S.)." (G&M, 29 Apr.'11)
- that's after tax - why do they need a tax break, I need a Petrol break.
and the cost of everything increases accordingly since it takes gas to get the raw materials to the factory and the value added goods to the consumer.
Along with the inflation will come loss of jobs, reduced standard of living, increase in the number of families that can't make ends meet
It's just that simple.
Harper's strategy can be summed up in three words:
Nada-Nada-Nyet
'Nada' for the tax the Oil companies should pay
'Nada' for the regulation towards environmental control
and
'Nyet' for the help to Canadians who need it.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
29 April, 2011
- Harper's Con Of Convenience
Submitted: 6:58am, PDT, 29 Apr.'11 The Toronto Star
Exclusive: Majority out of reach, Tories say, Robert Benzie, Toronto Star, 29 Apr.'11
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/982356--exclusive-majority-out-of-reach-tories-say#comments
Harper also Explained That The Decisions Are Not all Snake Oil
The Big Question Is Just How Much Of Harper Is Snake Oil
I'd Say Pretty Much 100%
One of the biggest "snake oil" pitches of Harper is that if he gets a minority of seats but more than the other parties, and even if he only gets approx 1/3 of the vote, he has the right to run this great nation of ours.
That may be 'Right' in a right-wing extremist sort of way and a 'con' of convenience for Harper.
But it is not right constitutionally, morally or according to the will of the Canadian people.
The election is to vote for representatives to Parliament, they're referred to as "MP's".
In the election there are 308 winners in a first past the post system.
However, the Prime Minister and the party, or parties, that end up governing are then elected by these our representatives and hold power as long as they enjoy the Confidence these representatives.
We are accountable to our children and our children's children
who would very well regret that we were ever given a turn at the helm because we allowed Harper power.
How about spending $30 billions, and counting, on 65 F-35 strike force super-jets - which are designed specifically and really may only be used to anywhere near their capacity in a full pitched war.
How about the 10's billions in implementing Harper's criminal legislation which has no foundation in rationality but only in right-wing ideology, designed to fear monger votes.
Then we have the Healthcare negotiations in '14
- how many generations will it take to undo the damage Harper would do to the Canadian way of life and our social fabric if Harper is allowed to privatize, sorry I meant, renegotiate Healthcare in '14.
If Harper gets a majority - God save Canada
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Exclusive: Majority out of reach, Tories say, Robert Benzie, Toronto Star, 29 Apr.'11
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/982356--exclusive-majority-out-of-reach-tories-say#comments
Harper also Explained That The Decisions Are Not all Snake Oil
The Big Question Is Just How Much Of Harper Is Snake Oil
I'd Say Pretty Much 100%
One of the biggest "snake oil" pitches of Harper is that if he gets a minority of seats but more than the other parties, and even if he only gets approx 1/3 of the vote, he has the right to run this great nation of ours.
That may be 'Right' in a right-wing extremist sort of way and a 'con' of convenience for Harper.
But it is not right constitutionally, morally or according to the will of the Canadian people.
The election is to vote for representatives to Parliament, they're referred to as "MP's".
In the election there are 308 winners in a first past the post system.
However, the Prime Minister and the party, or parties, that end up governing are then elected by these our representatives and hold power as long as they enjoy the Confidence these representatives.
We are accountable to our children and our children's children
who would very well regret that we were ever given a turn at the helm because we allowed Harper power.
How about spending $30 billions, and counting, on 65 F-35 strike force super-jets - which are designed specifically and really may only be used to anywhere near their capacity in a full pitched war.
How about the 10's billions in implementing Harper's criminal legislation which has no foundation in rationality but only in right-wing ideology, designed to fear monger votes.
Then we have the Healthcare negotiations in '14
- how many generations will it take to undo the damage Harper would do to the Canadian way of life and our social fabric if Harper is allowed to privatize, sorry I meant, renegotiate Healthcare in '14.
If Harper gets a majority - God save Canada
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
28 April, 2011
- Harper's Nada-Nada-Nyet Policy
Submitted: 11:33am, PDT, 28 Apr.'11 CBC
see below
and
Submitted: 2:47 PM on April 28, 2011 The Globe and Mail
Harper predicts pain
at gas pumps should Layton grab share of power, STEVEN CHASE, Globe and Mail, April 28, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-predicts-pain-at-gas-pumps-should-layton-grab-share-of-power/article2002089/
The biggest threat to our recovering economy is the increases in Oil and Gas and the inevitable sky-rocketing costs of everything else because of it
And
Harper's Nada-Nada-Nyet Policy:
Nada for the tax,
Nada for the regulation
and
Nyet for the help to Canadians who need it.
Along with the inflation will come loss of jobs, reduced standard of living, increase in the number of families that can't make ends meet, . . .
What is the Harper government doing to protect us from this
Nothing.
Harper is actually giving more to the Oil companies through subsidies and the tax reduction to the most profitable corporations - 30 -50% of which are Oil companies and Bank.
Neither the Oil companies nor the Banks require additional incentives to be in Canada.
The Banks are Canadian and like it here. However, they take the billions in profits they reap from us and invest it in other markets.
The Oil companies not only are they making huge, undreamt of profits, but Harper already gives them subsidies and now undreamt of tax breaks.
Also, these profits flow more quickly and more unobstructedly out of Canada than the Oil.
Will the Oil companies and Banks pull up stakes and leave Canada if they didn't receive the Harper tax breaks - not in our lifetimes.
The only protection we as Canadians have is to work together to help those that need help - that's what Federalism is all about.
Eliminate the subsidies to the Oil companies and roll back the Corporate taxes and apply the funds to assist Canadians that need help.
To Harper and his kind, this makes Canada "a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term . . ."
But, I suggest, to the Moderate Majority of Canadian this is what makes Canada strong, proud and a place where all the people are free to carry out their dreams and not bound to financial servitude.
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
see below
and
Submitted: 2:47 PM on April 28, 2011 The Globe and Mail
Harper predicts pain
at gas pumps should Layton grab share of power, STEVEN CHASE, Globe and Mail, April 28, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-predicts-pain-at-gas-pumps-should-layton-grab-share-of-power/article2002089/
The biggest threat to our recovering economy is the increases in Oil and Gas and the inevitable sky-rocketing costs of everything else because of it
And
Harper's Nada-Nada-Nyet Policy:
Nada for the tax,
Nada for the regulation
and
Nyet for the help to Canadians who need it.
Along with the inflation will come loss of jobs, reduced standard of living, increase in the number of families that can't make ends meet, . . .
What is the Harper government doing to protect us from this
Nothing.
Harper is actually giving more to the Oil companies through subsidies and the tax reduction to the most profitable corporations - 30 -50% of which are Oil companies and Bank.
Neither the Oil companies nor the Banks require additional incentives to be in Canada.
The Banks are Canadian and like it here. However, they take the billions in profits they reap from us and invest it in other markets.
The Oil companies not only are they making huge, undreamt of profits, but Harper already gives them subsidies and now undreamt of tax breaks.
Also, these profits flow more quickly and more unobstructedly out of Canada than the Oil.
Will the Oil companies and Banks pull up stakes and leave Canada if they didn't receive the Harper tax breaks - not in our lifetimes.
The only protection we as Canadians have is to work together to help those that need help - that's what Federalism is all about.
Eliminate the subsidies to the Oil companies and roll back the Corporate taxes and apply the funds to assist Canadians that need help.
To Harper and his kind, this makes Canada "a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term . . ."
But, I suggest, to the Moderate Majority of Canadian this is what makes Canada strong, proud and a place where all the people are free to carry out their dreams and not bound to financial servitude.
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Harper: "Get the big decisions wrong and it will take a generation to dig ourselves out" - You've Got That Right
Submitted: 7:37am, PDT, 28 Apr.'11 CBC
Final campaign push before royal wedding, CBC News Posted: Apr 28, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/28/cv-election-day34.html#
"Get the big decisions wrong and it will take a generation to dig ourselves out"
Ironical or what!
Harper, when you're right, you're right - of course, you're always 'Right' - in a right-wing extremist ideological sort of way.
Give Harper a Majority and Our Children and Our Children's Children Will be Digging themselves Out for Generations.
How about spending $30 billions, and counting, on 65 F-35 strike force super-jets - which are designed specifically and really may only be used to anywhere near their capacity in a full pitched war.
How about the 10's billions in implementing Harper's criminal legislation which has no foundation in rationality but only in right-wing ideology, designed to fear monger votes.
How about Harper turning his back on seniors, students health care top give the Oil companies and banks increased profits - we don't need to increase profits, which flow out of Canada faster than the oil, to attract these companies they are already here and doing very well, at our expense - at least by taxing them we recoup some of the money they fleece from us.
Then we have the Healthcare negotiations in '14
- how many generations will it take to undo the damage Harper would do to the Canadian way of life and our social fabric if Harper is allowed to privatize, sorry I meant, renegotiate Healthcare.
Giving the reigns of power to someone like Harper can only prove, and has proved, disastrous to the Canadian way of life, and our very social fiber,
which our forefathers spent their blood, sweat and tears building
and for which we are accountable to our children and our children's children
who will very well regret that we were ever given a turn at the helm because we allowed Harper power.
If Harper gets a majority - God save Canada
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Final campaign push before royal wedding, CBC News Posted: Apr 28, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/28/cv-election-day34.html#
"Get the big decisions wrong and it will take a generation to dig ourselves out"
Ironical or what!
Harper, when you're right, you're right - of course, you're always 'Right' - in a right-wing extremist ideological sort of way.
Give Harper a Majority and Our Children and Our Children's Children Will be Digging themselves Out for Generations.
How about spending $30 billions, and counting, on 65 F-35 strike force super-jets - which are designed specifically and really may only be used to anywhere near their capacity in a full pitched war.
How about the 10's billions in implementing Harper's criminal legislation which has no foundation in rationality but only in right-wing ideology, designed to fear monger votes.
How about Harper turning his back on seniors, students health care top give the Oil companies and banks increased profits - we don't need to increase profits, which flow out of Canada faster than the oil, to attract these companies they are already here and doing very well, at our expense - at least by taxing them we recoup some of the money they fleece from us.
Then we have the Healthcare negotiations in '14
- how many generations will it take to undo the damage Harper would do to the Canadian way of life and our social fabric if Harper is allowed to privatize, sorry I meant, renegotiate Healthcare.
Giving the reigns of power to someone like Harper can only prove, and has proved, disastrous to the Canadian way of life, and our very social fiber,
which our forefathers spent their blood, sweat and tears building
and for which we are accountable to our children and our children's children
who will very well regret that we were ever given a turn at the helm because we allowed Harper power.
If Harper gets a majority - God save Canada
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper: "Not All Snake Oil" - Maybe, But, Just How Much Of You Is Not "All Snake Oil"
Submitted: 7:28am, PDT, 28 Apr.'11 CBC
Final campaign push before royal wedding, CBC News Posted: Apr 28, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/28/cv-election-day34.html#
'not all snake oil'???
Talk about a Freudian slip
Harper subconscious contacting voters directly to warn us of just who we might be voting for.
Something like the release of the Harper quotations the other day
There is some force at work in the Universe trying to warn Canadians about Harper.
Perhaps Harper could specify just how much of what he says or does is 'snake oil'
That would be good to know when you're deciding who to vote for.
- my estimate is pretty much 100% - except the part about refusing to co-operate with the duly elected representatives of the Moderate Majority of Canadians
One of Harper's fundamental plays is to take a weakness and try to make it a strength.
The results is some of the most ironic, to say the least, and hypocritical to be a bit more blunt, statements in the annals of Canadian political history
This is right up there with Harper's Fundamental Principle of Con'ism:
"it doesn't have to be true, it only has to sound plausible"
Something like Harper referring to Trudeau, one of the greatest supporters of Democracy and individuals freedoms in Canadian history
Mr. Harper, The Charter of Rights And Freedoms is not something that has taken a generation to dig out of - unless you are a right wing extremist, contemptuous of Canadian Democracy.
Only Harper and the Con's could show such contempt for basic Democracy in Canada.
A favorite of mine is Harper commenting on Democracy and how the media should shine its light on the dark corners of government.
Hay Stevo, how about releasing the Afghan Detainee Transfer Scandal Report or the have the Summit Spending Scandal Report released.
Or, how about releasing what you know about the real costs of the 65 F-35's and the real costs of implementing your criminal legislation.
Of course, we all know the reason Harper doesn't want the light of Democracy shining on these matters
- he would lose the election.
It's just that simple.
However,
"not all snake oil"???
- my estimate is pretty much 100% - except that part about refusing to work with the other Parties, if there is no majority. Harper and the Con's didn't work with the other Parties before the election, if fact to such an extent that he was manifestly in contempt of our most important of Democracy institutions and the only one for which we have a direct input and represents us.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Final campaign push before royal wedding, CBC News Posted: Apr 28, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/28/cv-election-day34.html#
'not all snake oil'???
Talk about a Freudian slip
Harper subconscious contacting voters directly to warn us of just who we might be voting for.
Something like the release of the Harper quotations the other day
There is some force at work in the Universe trying to warn Canadians about Harper.
Perhaps Harper could specify just how much of what he says or does is 'snake oil'
That would be good to know when you're deciding who to vote for.
- my estimate is pretty much 100% - except the part about refusing to co-operate with the duly elected representatives of the Moderate Majority of Canadians
One of Harper's fundamental plays is to take a weakness and try to make it a strength.
The results is some of the most ironic, to say the least, and hypocritical to be a bit more blunt, statements in the annals of Canadian political history
This is right up there with Harper's Fundamental Principle of Con'ism:
"it doesn't have to be true, it only has to sound plausible"
Something like Harper referring to Trudeau, one of the greatest supporters of Democracy and individuals freedoms in Canadian history
Mr. Harper, The Charter of Rights And Freedoms is not something that has taken a generation to dig out of - unless you are a right wing extremist, contemptuous of Canadian Democracy.
Only Harper and the Con's could show such contempt for basic Democracy in Canada.
A favorite of mine is Harper commenting on Democracy and how the media should shine its light on the dark corners of government.
Hay Stevo, how about releasing the Afghan Detainee Transfer Scandal Report or the have the Summit Spending Scandal Report released.
Or, how about releasing what you know about the real costs of the 65 F-35's and the real costs of implementing your criminal legislation.
Of course, we all know the reason Harper doesn't want the light of Democracy shining on these matters
- he would lose the election.
It's just that simple.
However,
"not all snake oil"???
- my estimate is pretty much 100% - except that part about refusing to work with the other Parties, if there is no majority. Harper and the Con's didn't work with the other Parties before the election, if fact to such an extent that he was manifestly in contempt of our most important of Democracy institutions and the only one for which we have a direct input and represents us.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
27 April, 2011
- if we want to get rid of Harper we must take a cold hard look at the realities and decide accordingly
Lloyd Macilquham cicblog
4:02 PM on April 27, 2011
My Response to mikerobinson3 Reply, 1:46 PM on April 27, 2011, to my post: Lloyd Macilquham cicblog
1:21 PM on April 27, 2011:
If we want Harper out, we must look at the realities.
The problem is that at this position we do not know what will happen and what the end result will be. If we did deciding how to vote would be easy.
We may only speculate, based on rationality and the fundamentals.
To say the NDP could take the place of the Liberals is a possibility. But, if they do the likelihood of Harper re-gaining power is pretty much assured.
But, if we want to get rid of Harper we must take a cold hard look at the realities and decide accordingly.
We cannot take a chance on the possibility that Layton and the NDP will make such a great surge as to form the government.
In fact, Layton and the NDP best chance at participating in governance is the Moderate Majority vote Liberal, resulting in a minority government supported by Liberals and NDP
It may be that Layton will for the next government but the chances are remote and if he fall short, it will put Harper back in power.
Your scenario represents a collapse of the current Political spectrum into a two party system of NDP and Con. This is possible but not very likely.
First it would have to get thru that 25% core support of the Liberals, especially in Ontario, and I don't think that can be inferred from the Polls. Whereas the NDP have a core of 18%.
Liberals are middle of the road, and Ontarians are more likely to vote Liberal than NDP. In fact, at this point it appears they are more likely to vote Con than NDP, or Liberal for that matter.
The Poll illustrates this (Con: 46.9, Lib: 25.7, NDP: 21)
If we base our decisions merely on hopes and speculations we will end up with Harper again. In fact looking at the Polls it looks like the damage of Layton's long standing desire to be the leader of the Official Opposition has already done its damage - in Ontario the Con's are perched for a landslide - according to this Poll.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
4:02 PM on April 27, 2011
My Response to mikerobinson3 Reply, 1:46 PM on April 27, 2011, to my post: Lloyd Macilquham cicblog
1:21 PM on April 27, 2011:
If we want Harper out, we must look at the realities.
The problem is that at this position we do not know what will happen and what the end result will be. If we did deciding how to vote would be easy.
We may only speculate, based on rationality and the fundamentals.
To say the NDP could take the place of the Liberals is a possibility. But, if they do the likelihood of Harper re-gaining power is pretty much assured.
But, if we want to get rid of Harper we must take a cold hard look at the realities and decide accordingly.
We cannot take a chance on the possibility that Layton and the NDP will make such a great surge as to form the government.
In fact, Layton and the NDP best chance at participating in governance is the Moderate Majority vote Liberal, resulting in a minority government supported by Liberals and NDP
It may be that Layton will for the next government but the chances are remote and if he fall short, it will put Harper back in power.
Your scenario represents a collapse of the current Political spectrum into a two party system of NDP and Con. This is possible but not very likely.
First it would have to get thru that 25% core support of the Liberals, especially in Ontario, and I don't think that can be inferred from the Polls. Whereas the NDP have a core of 18%.
Liberals are middle of the road, and Ontarians are more likely to vote Liberal than NDP. In fact, at this point it appears they are more likely to vote Con than NDP, or Liberal for that matter.
The Poll illustrates this (Con: 46.9, Lib: 25.7, NDP: 21)
If we base our decisions merely on hopes and speculations we will end up with Harper again. In fact looking at the Polls it looks like the damage of Layton's long standing desire to be the leader of the Official Opposition has already done its damage - in Ontario the Con's are perched for a landslide - according to this Poll.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- To The Moderate Majority: The Real Battleground is Ontario and Harper and the Con's are perched to make a sweep
Posted: 1:21 PM on April 27, 2011 The Globe and Mail
Nanos Poll
Layton jumps well ahead of Ignatieff as voters get off ‘the political couch’, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail,
April 27, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/layton-jumps-well-ahead-of-ignatieff-as-voters-get-off-the-political-couch/article2000297/comments/
For all those Moderate Majority for whom getting rid of Harper is paramount we must look at the situation realistically and decide what is the most likely to happen.
Any voters for whom putting an end to the Harper regime is paramount, voting Liberal is the only realistic way of doing it.
And, it is, realistically, the only way to have Layton and the NDP participate in the governance of this great country of ours.
The real battleground is Ontario and if one were to believe this Poll Harper and the Con's are perched to make a sweep, resulting in a majority.
At this point the only way to prevent it is voting and voting Liberal. The NDP serge can only operate to prevent this and result in a Harper majority.
Layton is campaigning to become the Official Opposition
However, Layton becoming Official Opposition, would, with a high likelihood, cause Harper to get more seats than now or a majority.
Either way Layton becoming the leader of the Official Opposition would, in reality, mean Harper re-gains power over Canada.
The chances that Layton will get a majority is existent but remote.
The chances that Layton will end up ahead of Harper are, again remote.
The facts are:
Harper has a core of 33%
Liberals have a core of at least 25% - and that is the bare core.
The NDP have a core of 18% and that is on the high side.
For Layton to get a majority there would have to be a total collapse of the Canadian political spectrum into two parties, with one being NDP and the other Con - not even remotely possible, in this election anyway, especially given the Liberal core support.
It is possible that Layton could finish second, but as pointed out above, he would not be first. In this scenario it could only be, in reality, with Harper finishing first.
To surpass the Liberals there would be a high amount of vote splitting between NDP and Liberal. The likely outcome is Harper winning seats in riding he would other not resulting in an increase in seats. Or, seats switching from Lib to NDP, not affecting Harper's seat total.
In other words Harper can only win.
(In Quebec, this applies to vote splitting with the Bloc in Quebec although it may be preferable to have the seats NDP than Bloc, but no matter what it would not likely result in less seats for Harper, or only one or two. The only Province where the NDP could cause Harper to significantly lose seats is BC. It may be possible for a few and that would be a good thing. But, Que & BC would not likely put the NDP in a position of participating in the governance of this great country of ours)
And, either way, Layton and the NDP would not be given any chance to take part in the governance of Canada.
Harper has made it abundantly clear that he will not share power with any of the other parties to exercise power over Canada - and, given his track record, this is one of the only things that I find believable from Harper.
So, any voters for whom putting an end to the Harper regime is paramount, voting Liberal is the only realistic way of doing it.
And, it is, realistically, the only way to have Layton and the NDP participate in the governance of this great country of ours.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Nanos Poll
Layton jumps well ahead of Ignatieff as voters get off ‘the political couch’, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail,
April 27, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/layton-jumps-well-ahead-of-ignatieff-as-voters-get-off-the-political-couch/article2000297/comments/
For all those Moderate Majority for whom getting rid of Harper is paramount we must look at the situation realistically and decide what is the most likely to happen.
Any voters for whom putting an end to the Harper regime is paramount, voting Liberal is the only realistic way of doing it.
And, it is, realistically, the only way to have Layton and the NDP participate in the governance of this great country of ours.
The real battleground is Ontario and if one were to believe this Poll Harper and the Con's are perched to make a sweep, resulting in a majority.
At this point the only way to prevent it is voting and voting Liberal. The NDP serge can only operate to prevent this and result in a Harper majority.
Layton is campaigning to become the Official Opposition
However, Layton becoming Official Opposition, would, with a high likelihood, cause Harper to get more seats than now or a majority.
Either way Layton becoming the leader of the Official Opposition would, in reality, mean Harper re-gains power over Canada.
The chances that Layton will get a majority is existent but remote.
The chances that Layton will end up ahead of Harper are, again remote.
The facts are:
Harper has a core of 33%
Liberals have a core of at least 25% - and that is the bare core.
The NDP have a core of 18% and that is on the high side.
For Layton to get a majority there would have to be a total collapse of the Canadian political spectrum into two parties, with one being NDP and the other Con - not even remotely possible, in this election anyway, especially given the Liberal core support.
It is possible that Layton could finish second, but as pointed out above, he would not be first. In this scenario it could only be, in reality, with Harper finishing first.
To surpass the Liberals there would be a high amount of vote splitting between NDP and Liberal. The likely outcome is Harper winning seats in riding he would other not resulting in an increase in seats. Or, seats switching from Lib to NDP, not affecting Harper's seat total.
In other words Harper can only win.
(In Quebec, this applies to vote splitting with the Bloc in Quebec although it may be preferable to have the seats NDP than Bloc, but no matter what it would not likely result in less seats for Harper, or only one or two. The only Province where the NDP could cause Harper to significantly lose seats is BC. It may be possible for a few and that would be a good thing. But, Que & BC would not likely put the NDP in a position of participating in the governance of this great country of ours)
And, either way, Layton and the NDP would not be given any chance to take part in the governance of Canada.
Harper has made it abundantly clear that he will not share power with any of the other parties to exercise power over Canada - and, given his track record, this is one of the only things that I find believable from Harper.
So, any voters for whom putting an end to the Harper regime is paramount, voting Liberal is the only realistic way of doing it.
And, it is, realistically, the only way to have Layton and the NDP participate in the governance of this great country of ours.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Layton seems to be Campaigning to become the Official Opposition, resulting with Harper Re-taking Power
Submitted: 8:02am, PDT 27 Apr,.'11 CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/27/cv-election-day33.html#
Ignatieff steps up attack on NDP
CBC News Posted: Apr 27, 2011 5:49 AM ET Last Updated: Apr 27, 2011 10:06 AM ET Read 452 comments452 Back to accessibility links
Late election campaigning makes for great media
but
The Moderate Majority
- those 66% of Canadian that do not want Harper and the Con's running this great nation of ours any longer -
must keep three things in mind:
- Harper and the Con's have 33% right-wing extremist die-hard supporters.
They will get out and vote and vote for Harper no matter what,
the lower the voter turnout the greater % of the vote the Con die-hards make up .
- The Moderate Majority are not engaged and don't vote - at least until now.
- The Moderate Majority are not consolidated.
It's just that simple.
Harper has been running this country only because the Moderate Majority have not been engaged enough to vote
and have not consolidated
just look at the results of the last election.
All the Moderate Majority must ask themselves whether ensuring Harper out of office is paramount. If it is then they must vote
but,
just as importantly, if not more:
they must consolidate
Vote splitting will give Harper a minority
The only way Harper will lose power is the Moderate Majority consolidate giving a minority government supported by the Liberal and NDP.
The reality is voting Liberal is the only way to ensure consolidation and not vote splitting.
But, it is, in reality, the only way the NDP can share in governing this great country of ours.
Layton seems to be Campaigning to become the Official Opposition, resulting with Harper re-taking power.
Left leaning Canadians should be voting to so that the NDP may share governance.
If nothing else it gets rid of Harper and that's a good thing.
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/27/cv-election-day33.html#
Ignatieff steps up attack on NDP
CBC News Posted: Apr 27, 2011 5:49 AM ET Last Updated: Apr 27, 2011 10:06 AM ET Read 452 comments452 Back to accessibility links
Late election campaigning makes for great media
but
The Moderate Majority
- those 66% of Canadian that do not want Harper and the Con's running this great nation of ours any longer -
must keep three things in mind:
- Harper and the Con's have 33% right-wing extremist die-hard supporters.
They will get out and vote and vote for Harper no matter what,
the lower the voter turnout the greater % of the vote the Con die-hards make up .
- The Moderate Majority are not engaged and don't vote - at least until now.
- The Moderate Majority are not consolidated.
It's just that simple.
Harper has been running this country only because the Moderate Majority have not been engaged enough to vote
and have not consolidated
just look at the results of the last election.
All the Moderate Majority must ask themselves whether ensuring Harper out of office is paramount. If it is then they must vote
but,
just as importantly, if not more:
they must consolidate
Vote splitting will give Harper a minority
The only way Harper will lose power is the Moderate Majority consolidate giving a minority government supported by the Liberal and NDP.
The reality is voting Liberal is the only way to ensure consolidation and not vote splitting.
But, it is, in reality, the only way the NDP can share in governing this great country of ours.
Layton seems to be Campaigning to become the Official Opposition, resulting with Harper re-taking power.
Left leaning Canadians should be voting to so that the NDP may share governance.
If nothing else it gets rid of Harper and that's a good thing.
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Low Voter Turn Out = Low Moderate Majority Turnout = Harper Minority or Even Majority.
Submitted: 7:07am, 27 Apr/'11 CBC
Advance poll numbers soar 34% from 2008, Friday, Monday busiest advance poll days ever, CBC News Posted: Apr 26, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/26/cv-election-advance-polls.html#
It's just that simple.
Harper and the Con's have 33% right-wing extremist die-hard supporters who will both vote and vote for the Con's
the lower the voter turnout the greater percentage of the vote they make up (you can throw in a small amount of soft vote but they are subject to the same problems as the opposition parties - voter turn out and voting the same as their prior intentions).
Harper has been running this country only because the Moderate Majority have not been engaged enough to vote and have not consolidated.
In the '08 election the biggest factor was the low voter turnout overall and for the Liberals, especially. Harper and the Con's were pretty much the same as the previous election:
Voter turnout was down from the previous election (approx 6.6% less) and Liberals received 850,000 less votes (or approx 19% less)
but Con's received approximately the same number of votes (actually 165,000 less or approx 3% less) as the previous election but ended up with 37.7%
and in the recent Vaughan by-election
where voter turnout was way down (32.5%), the Liberals were down approx 10,000 votes and the Con's received approximately the same number of votes
One good thing about the perceived 'NDP surge', it is getting people's attention and presumably animating them to get out and vote. It is difficult to rely on Polls - you simply don't know if they are accurately reflecting the mood of Canadian voters until after the election
and the all important voter turnout
The task now is getting their base motivated to get the vote out on election day. The Liberals have the most to do and the most to gain, or loss.
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Advance poll numbers soar 34% from 2008, Friday, Monday busiest advance poll days ever, CBC News Posted: Apr 26, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/26/cv-election-advance-polls.html#
It's just that simple.
Harper and the Con's have 33% right-wing extremist die-hard supporters who will both vote and vote for the Con's
the lower the voter turnout the greater percentage of the vote they make up (you can throw in a small amount of soft vote but they are subject to the same problems as the opposition parties - voter turn out and voting the same as their prior intentions).
Harper has been running this country only because the Moderate Majority have not been engaged enough to vote and have not consolidated.
In the '08 election the biggest factor was the low voter turnout overall and for the Liberals, especially. Harper and the Con's were pretty much the same as the previous election:
Voter turnout was down from the previous election (approx 6.6% less) and Liberals received 850,000 less votes (or approx 19% less)
but Con's received approximately the same number of votes (actually 165,000 less or approx 3% less) as the previous election but ended up with 37.7%
and in the recent Vaughan by-election
where voter turnout was way down (32.5%), the Liberals were down approx 10,000 votes and the Con's received approximately the same number of votes
One good thing about the perceived 'NDP surge', it is getting people's attention and presumably animating them to get out and vote. It is difficult to rely on Polls - you simply don't know if they are accurately reflecting the mood of Canadian voters until after the election
and the all important voter turnout
The task now is getting their base motivated to get the vote out on election day. The Liberals have the most to do and the most to gain, or loss.
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
26 April, 2011
- Harper Quotes - In Bulk - Links
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/86540-harper-dossier-part-1.html
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/86540-harper-dossier-part-2.html
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/86540-harper-dossier-part-3.html
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/86540-harper-dossier-part-4.html
CBC 26 Apr.'11
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/the-harper-quotes-dossier-a-sample.html
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/86540-harper-dossier-part-2.html
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/86540-harper-dossier-part-3.html
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/86540-harper-dossier-part-4.html
CBC 26 Apr.'11
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/the-harper-quotes-dossier-a-sample.html
- But, Harper is 'reformed' - wait, Harper always was Reform'd
Submitted: 7:52am, PDT, 26 Apr.'11 CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/the-harper-quotes-dossier-a-sample.html
The Harper quotes dossier: a sample
April 25, 2011
You might ask yourself why this book is coming to light now.
Obviously there is someone, or persons, that have played a very significant role in the rise of Harper and Con's that are very concerned that Canadian know just exactly how Harper in his heart of hearts feels before they give him a majority.
We're not talking in the 60's, 70's or 80's
We're talking current, right up till Harper gained power - what would Freud say about such repressed emotions.
-From the June 26, 2003 update, page 5 - on health:
"The federal government doesn't run the health-care system, it didn't create it and it's not going to fix it." April 12, 2001
You've got the 'Right' - in a right-wing, extremist ideological, 'Harper-Right' sort of way, that is.
Anyone who thinks that Harper would have Canadians' best interests at heart in negotiating the Health Care with the Provinces in '14 will be sorrily (literally, as well as figuratively) mistaken and should keep this in mind.
Harper quotes about Alberta, the West and his accusations against the rest of Canada, Ontario and Quebec, in particular, demonstrates the very divisive, fear mongering brand of politics Harper plays.
- on the Canadian Alliance: "This political party stands for values that are eternal ... this country will either adopt our values or it will fail." Dec. 20, 2001
Now, there's a self-fulfilling prophesy - if we give Harper enough time in power, or a majority
- on the Liberal Party:
"The fundamental strategy of the Liberal party for the last 30 years remains screw the West, get the rest." - 06/2003 (date partially cut off)
- on Alberta:
"We [Alberta] are the only province in Canada keeping pace with the top tier countries in the world. Now we must show that we will not stand for a second-tier country run by a third-world leader with fourth-class values." 02/2001
-From April 11, 2003 Harper Quotations, p. 11 - on western alienation:
"I too am one of these angry westerners. The Liberals demonized the West and Alberta in particular ... we may love Canada, but Canada does not love us ... let's make the province strong enough that the rest of the country is afraid to threaten us." Dec. 18, 2000
[ there is also:
Stephen Harper's speech to the Council for National Policy, June 1997:
"First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term . . ."
Apparently, when confronted with what he say a while ago he quipped that he was just joking - some joke. When you read the speech it doesn't sound like he's joking.
]
Anyone that thinks Harper has Canadians best interest, other than the West that is, at heart should keep these quotes, and there are others, in mind. This applies especially to people in Ontario and Quebec
Oh, sorry, Harper is 'reformed' - wait, Harper always was Reform'd and still is at heart a right-wing extremist ideologue, bent on the West, to the exclusion of the rest of Canada and with no hesitation to use division and fear mongering to mobilize his core.
It also illustrates the importance, significance and reality of the following observation.
Harper and the Con's have a core of 33% die-hard supporters. People who are at the extreme right of Canadian social, economic and political values. They have and will support Harper pretty much no matter what, provided he does not abandon his right-wing extremist views and intentions.
They have been very patient in the last 5 years while Harper has had a minority government and even 'understanding' that Harper could not simply come out and in the first 100 days, radically change the social landscape of Canada to the extreme right of the spectrum of Canadian values.
After all it's better to in power than out.
However, with a majority Harper will have the absolute and unstoppable power and will have to Pay the Piper.
These right-wing extremists will demand their social agenda be implemented and Harper 'can not and will not' refuse.
It's just that simple.
The above reflects what really lurks in the hearts of Harper and his Con's, the fundamental belief that lies at the heart of Harper and his supporters.
This may have been covered up in some kind of cosmetic way, while Harper has a minority in order for his to maintain power.
But, you can betcha, it will be uncovered, and pronto, if Harper were to get a majority.
excerpt: comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/the-harper-quotes-dossier-a-sample.html
The Harper quotes dossier: a sample
April 25, 2011
You might ask yourself why this book is coming to light now.
Obviously there is someone, or persons, that have played a very significant role in the rise of Harper and Con's that are very concerned that Canadian know just exactly how Harper in his heart of hearts feels before they give him a majority.
We're not talking in the 60's, 70's or 80's
We're talking current, right up till Harper gained power - what would Freud say about such repressed emotions.
-From the June 26, 2003 update, page 5 - on health:
"The federal government doesn't run the health-care system, it didn't create it and it's not going to fix it." April 12, 2001
You've got the 'Right' - in a right-wing, extremist ideological, 'Harper-Right' sort of way, that is.
Anyone who thinks that Harper would have Canadians' best interests at heart in negotiating the Health Care with the Provinces in '14 will be sorrily (literally, as well as figuratively) mistaken and should keep this in mind.
Harper quotes about Alberta, the West and his accusations against the rest of Canada, Ontario and Quebec, in particular, demonstrates the very divisive, fear mongering brand of politics Harper plays.
- on the Canadian Alliance: "This political party stands for values that are eternal ... this country will either adopt our values or it will fail." Dec. 20, 2001
Now, there's a self-fulfilling prophesy - if we give Harper enough time in power, or a majority
- on the Liberal Party:
"The fundamental strategy of the Liberal party for the last 30 years remains screw the West, get the rest." - 06/2003 (date partially cut off)
- on Alberta:
"We [Alberta] are the only province in Canada keeping pace with the top tier countries in the world. Now we must show that we will not stand for a second-tier country run by a third-world leader with fourth-class values." 02/2001
-From April 11, 2003 Harper Quotations, p. 11 - on western alienation:
"I too am one of these angry westerners. The Liberals demonized the West and Alberta in particular ... we may love Canada, but Canada does not love us ... let's make the province strong enough that the rest of the country is afraid to threaten us." Dec. 18, 2000
[ there is also:
Stephen Harper's speech to the Council for National Policy, June 1997:
"First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term . . ."
Apparently, when confronted with what he say a while ago he quipped that he was just joking - some joke. When you read the speech it doesn't sound like he's joking.
]
Anyone that thinks Harper has Canadians best interest, other than the West that is, at heart should keep these quotes, and there are others, in mind. This applies especially to people in Ontario and Quebec
Oh, sorry, Harper is 'reformed' - wait, Harper always was Reform'd and still is at heart a right-wing extremist ideologue, bent on the West, to the exclusion of the rest of Canada and with no hesitation to use division and fear mongering to mobilize his core.
It also illustrates the importance, significance and reality of the following observation.
Harper and the Con's have a core of 33% die-hard supporters. People who are at the extreme right of Canadian social, economic and political values. They have and will support Harper pretty much no matter what, provided he does not abandon his right-wing extremist views and intentions.
They have been very patient in the last 5 years while Harper has had a minority government and even 'understanding' that Harper could not simply come out and in the first 100 days, radically change the social landscape of Canada to the extreme right of the spectrum of Canadian values.
After all it's better to in power than out.
However, with a majority Harper will have the absolute and unstoppable power and will have to Pay the Piper.
These right-wing extremists will demand their social agenda be implemented and Harper 'can not and will not' refuse.
It's just that simple.
The above reflects what really lurks in the hearts of Harper and his Con's, the fundamental belief that lies at the heart of Harper and his supporters.
This may have been covered up in some kind of cosmetic way, while Harper has a minority in order for his to maintain power.
But, you can betcha, it will be uncovered, and pronto, if Harper were to get a majority.
excerpt: comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
25 April, 2011
- Quebec Margin of Error, +/- 64% ??? That's One Big Error
Posted: 12:38 PM on April 25, 2011
Nanos Poll
Strength in Ontario puts ‘squeaker of a majority’ within Harper’s reach, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail Update, April 25, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/strength-in-ontario-puts-squeaker-of-a-majority-within-harpers-reach/article1997430/
The Polls methodologies may be suspect, both in its questioning and how they take their samples.
"Allan Gregg, chairman of Harris-Decima, which provides political polling for the Canadian Press. He is also a regular member of The National's At Issue panel on CBC TV.
Gregg has been doing political polling since the 1970s . . .
'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.
'The dirty little secret of the polling business,' he went on, '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.'"
(CBC, 25 Apr.'11)
Gregg explains that 30 years ago 70-80 % of people called by phone answered the polls now it is 15%. Also, with cell phones the sampling can be worse.
One would expect that with only 15% answering the Polls a proportionately larger % that answer are highly motivated politically. This may explain the high numbers for the Con's as well as the large fluctuations in their numbers.
NDP are also typified by highly motivated supporters that one would expect would also jump at the opportunity to express their views.
Internet Polls or polls that are passively open to people to answer may, obviously, be biased. For example the Crop Poll that started this whole thing about an NDP 'surge' in Quebec.
Then, of course, there is taking a National Poll, one designed for National use and restricting the results to a Province.
If Polls are sensitive to questioning and sampling methodologies and even adjusted to take these things into account.
Then how in the world can someone justify taking National results and restricting it to Provincial results.
It is not simply a question of increasing the Margin Of Error because the sample size is decreased. The results of a Poll may vary greatly because of the design of the questioning from Province to Province as well as the sampling methodologies.
If anything, the Polls should be done the other way around - take separate Provincial Polls and combine them to make a National Poll - but what Polling Company would spend the money on doing that.
Oh and by the way, did I mention this article states:
"In Quebec . . . (There is a margin of error of plus or minus 64 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, for the provincial sample.)"
Taber - That's one big error.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Nanos Poll
Strength in Ontario puts ‘squeaker of a majority’ within Harper’s reach, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail Update, April 25, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/strength-in-ontario-puts-squeaker-of-a-majority-within-harpers-reach/article1997430/
The Polls methodologies may be suspect, both in its questioning and how they take their samples.
"Allan Gregg, chairman of Harris-Decima, which provides political polling for the Canadian Press. He is also a regular member of The National's At Issue panel on CBC TV.
Gregg has been doing political polling since the 1970s . . .
'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.
'The dirty little secret of the polling business,' he went on, '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.'"
(CBC, 25 Apr.'11)
Gregg explains that 30 years ago 70-80 % of people called by phone answered the polls now it is 15%. Also, with cell phones the sampling can be worse.
One would expect that with only 15% answering the Polls a proportionately larger % that answer are highly motivated politically. This may explain the high numbers for the Con's as well as the large fluctuations in their numbers.
NDP are also typified by highly motivated supporters that one would expect would also jump at the opportunity to express their views.
Internet Polls or polls that are passively open to people to answer may, obviously, be biased. For example the Crop Poll that started this whole thing about an NDP 'surge' in Quebec.
Then, of course, there is taking a National Poll, one designed for National use and restricting the results to a Province.
If Polls are sensitive to questioning and sampling methodologies and even adjusted to take these things into account.
Then how in the world can someone justify taking National results and restricting it to Provincial results.
It is not simply a question of increasing the Margin Of Error because the sample size is decreased. The results of a Poll may vary greatly because of the design of the questioning from Province to Province as well as the sampling methodologies.
If anything, the Polls should be done the other way around - take separate Provincial Polls and combine them to make a National Poll - but what Polling Company would spend the money on doing that.
Oh and by the way, did I mention this article states:
"In Quebec . . . (There is a margin of error of plus or minus 64 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, for the provincial sample.)"
Taber - That's one big error.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Polls - Who Need Polls to Predict - If the Moderate Majority don't vote and don't consolidate their vote Harper will likely finish ahead in seat numbers and perhaps even get a majority.
Posted: 12:27 PM on April 25, 2011
Nanos Poll
Strength in Ontario puts ‘squeaker of a majority’ within Harper’s reach, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail Update, April 25, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/strength-in-ontario-puts-squeaker-of-a-majority-within-harpers-reach/article1997430/
I think everyone should take the Polls with a grain, or numerous grains of salt.
The problem is that they make great 'sound bites' for the media and with people turning to the media for their due diligence on voting, it become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
'everyone loves and underdog' 'it's a horse race', etc., so the media plays it up or even look for drama where drama may not actually exist.
The media does get people engaged, but to me should de-emphasize Polls, or emphasize their shortcomings and possible undue influence on people.
Even if the Polling is accurate people focus on the numbers and not the ranges.
For example, 20 Apr.'11, Nanos Poll:
BQ CON GRN LIB NDP ERROR±
7.5 39 3.4 26.7 22.1 3.1
Perhaps Nanos could confirm that it is just as legitimate to say that:
BQ CON GRN LIB NDP
10.6 35.9 3.4 29.8 19
For example, 24 Apr.'11, Nanos Poll:
BQ CON GRN LIB NDP ERROR±
6.5 39.2 3.6 25.6 23.6 +/- 3.1
Undecided 17.5
Perhaps Nanos could also confirm that it is just as legitimate to say that:
BQ CON GRN LIB NDP
9.6 36.1 3.4 28.7 20.5
Undecided 20.6
And the interesting thing is that this is approx what Polls have been indicating, generally, for more than a year
And puts Nanos in line with the Ekos and Forum Polls as far as the Con's are concerned.
So, is the Nanos Poll wrong - not if you know how to read Polls.
However, the average person may take it to means that the Con's actually have 39% support and the NDP have 22% and the NDP are experiencing a huge 'surge'.
Also, without stating what the undecided and refusal to respond, etc., is, the results of the Poll can be become quite deceptive.
Voter turn out is vital in predicting the results of the election and a low voter turnout was basically the reasons the Con's got so many seats.
Harper and the Con's have 33% right-wing extremist die-hard supporters who will both vote and vote for the Con's.
The lower the voter turn out the higher the % for Harper.
This phenomenon was accentuated in the last election
where voter turnout was down from the previous election (approx 6.6% less) and Liberals received 850,000 less votes (or approx 19% less)
but Con's received approximately the same number of votes (actually 165,000 less or approx 3% less) as the previous election but ended up with 37.7%
If the Moderate Majority don't vote and don't consolidate their vote Harper will likely finish ahead in seat numbers and perhaps even get a majority.
Vote splitting amongst the Moderate Majority only makes this more of a likelihood.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Nanos Poll
Strength in Ontario puts ‘squeaker of a majority’ within Harper’s reach, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail Update, April 25, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/strength-in-ontario-puts-squeaker-of-a-majority-within-harpers-reach/article1997430/
I think everyone should take the Polls with a grain, or numerous grains of salt.
The problem is that they make great 'sound bites' for the media and with people turning to the media for their due diligence on voting, it become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
'everyone loves and underdog' 'it's a horse race', etc., so the media plays it up or even look for drama where drama may not actually exist.
The media does get people engaged, but to me should de-emphasize Polls, or emphasize their shortcomings and possible undue influence on people.
Even if the Polling is accurate people focus on the numbers and not the ranges.
For example, 20 Apr.'11, Nanos Poll:
BQ CON GRN LIB NDP ERROR±
7.5 39 3.4 26.7 22.1 3.1
Perhaps Nanos could confirm that it is just as legitimate to say that:
BQ CON GRN LIB NDP
10.6 35.9 3.4 29.8 19
For example, 24 Apr.'11, Nanos Poll:
BQ CON GRN LIB NDP ERROR±
6.5 39.2 3.6 25.6 23.6 +/- 3.1
Undecided 17.5
Perhaps Nanos could also confirm that it is just as legitimate to say that:
BQ CON GRN LIB NDP
9.6 36.1 3.4 28.7 20.5
Undecided 20.6
And the interesting thing is that this is approx what Polls have been indicating, generally, for more than a year
And puts Nanos in line with the Ekos and Forum Polls as far as the Con's are concerned.
So, is the Nanos Poll wrong - not if you know how to read Polls.
However, the average person may take it to means that the Con's actually have 39% support and the NDP have 22% and the NDP are experiencing a huge 'surge'.
Also, without stating what the undecided and refusal to respond, etc., is, the results of the Poll can be become quite deceptive.
Voter turn out is vital in predicting the results of the election and a low voter turnout was basically the reasons the Con's got so many seats.
Harper and the Con's have 33% right-wing extremist die-hard supporters who will both vote and vote for the Con's.
The lower the voter turn out the higher the % for Harper.
This phenomenon was accentuated in the last election
where voter turnout was down from the previous election (approx 6.6% less) and Liberals received 850,000 less votes (or approx 19% less)
but Con's received approximately the same number of votes (actually 165,000 less or approx 3% less) as the previous election but ended up with 37.7%
If the Moderate Majority don't vote and don't consolidate their vote Harper will likely finish ahead in seat numbers and perhaps even get a majority.
Vote splitting amongst the Moderate Majority only makes this more of a likelihood.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
24 April, 2011
- Polls the same For Harper and the Liberals as last Election = Low Moderate Majority Turnout = Harper Minority
- Polls the same For Harper and the Liberls as last Election - Suggests Low Moderate Majority Turnout
No Quebec-style bump in polls for NDP in Ontario, GLORIA GALLOWAY, Globe and Mail, April 24, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/no-quebec-style-bump-in-polls-for-ndp-in-ontario/article1996858/
Harper and the Con's as well as the Liberals have approx the same % of support amongst committed voters as the the results of the '08 election
Suggests that there may very well be another low voter turnout overall as well as a major low voter turnout for the Liberals.
And the result may very well be the same as last time too - Harper getting more seats than the other parties, despite have almost 2/3 Canadians voting against him.
In the '08 election the biggest factor was the low voter turnout overall and for the Liberals. Harper and the Con's were pretty much the same as the previous election:
Harper and the Con's have 33% right-wing extremist die-hard supporters who will both vote and vote for the Con's
the lower the voter turnout the greater percentage of the vote they make up you can throw in a small amount of soft vote but they are subject to the same problems as the opposition parties - voter turn out and voting the same as their prior intentions.
This phenomenon was accentuated in the last election
where voter turnout was down from the previous election (approx 6.6% less) and Liberals received 850,000 less votes (or approx 19% less)
but Con's received approximately the same number of votes (actually 165,000 less or approx 3% less) as the previous election but ended up with 37.7%
and in the Vaughan by-election a few months ago
where voter turnout was way down (32.5%), the Liberals were down approx 10,000 votes and the Con's received approximately the same number of votes
Harper and the Con's have been running this country only because the Moderate Majority have not been engaged enough to vote and have not consolidated.
This poll suggest pretty much the same thing this time around.
All I can say is God save Canada
The only difference this time is the general awareness that the party that governs must be elected by Parliament which in turn is made up of our representatives which we have elected.
Harper is saying that Canadians will be surprised if the 'winner' of the election does not form the government.
This is a deliberate misrepresentation of our Democratic system - to his own convenience, of course.
In this election there are 308 winners and it is these winners who then elect, as our representatives in Parliament, which party will form the government.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
No Quebec-style bump in polls for NDP in Ontario, GLORIA GALLOWAY, Globe and Mail, April 24, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/no-quebec-style-bump-in-polls-for-ndp-in-ontario/article1996858/
Harper and the Con's as well as the Liberals have approx the same % of support amongst committed voters as the the results of the '08 election
Suggests that there may very well be another low voter turnout overall as well as a major low voter turnout for the Liberals.
And the result may very well be the same as last time too - Harper getting more seats than the other parties, despite have almost 2/3 Canadians voting against him.
In the '08 election the biggest factor was the low voter turnout overall and for the Liberals. Harper and the Con's were pretty much the same as the previous election:
Harper and the Con's have 33% right-wing extremist die-hard supporters who will both vote and vote for the Con's
the lower the voter turnout the greater percentage of the vote they make up you can throw in a small amount of soft vote but they are subject to the same problems as the opposition parties - voter turn out and voting the same as their prior intentions.
This phenomenon was accentuated in the last election
where voter turnout was down from the previous election (approx 6.6% less) and Liberals received 850,000 less votes (or approx 19% less)
but Con's received approximately the same number of votes (actually 165,000 less or approx 3% less) as the previous election but ended up with 37.7%
and in the Vaughan by-election a few months ago
where voter turnout was way down (32.5%), the Liberals were down approx 10,000 votes and the Con's received approximately the same number of votes
Harper and the Con's have been running this country only because the Moderate Majority have not been engaged enough to vote and have not consolidated.
This poll suggest pretty much the same thing this time around.
All I can say is God save Canada
The only difference this time is the general awareness that the party that governs must be elected by Parliament which in turn is made up of our representatives which we have elected.
Harper is saying that Canadians will be surprised if the 'winner' of the election does not form the government.
This is a deliberate misrepresentation of our Democratic system - to his own convenience, of course.
In this election there are 308 winners and it is these winners who then elect, as our representatives in Parliament, which party will form the government.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
23 April, 2011
- Harper Majority Not Opening the Abortion Debate - That's Not Right!
Posted: - not able to post
Behind Harper’s reluctance to revisit abortion issue
JOHN IBBITSON, Globe and Mail, Apr. 23, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/behind-harpers-reluctance-to-revisit-abortion-issue/article1996398/
Harper and the Con's have a core of 33% die-hard supporters. People who are at the extreme right of Canadian social, economic and political values. They have and will support Harper pretty much no matter what, provided he does not abandon his right-wing extremist views and intentions.
They have been very patient in the last 5 years while Harper has had a minority government and even 'understanding' that Harper could not simply come out and in the first 100 days, radically change the social landscape of Canada to the extreme right of the spectrum of Canadian values.
After all it's better to in power than out.
However, with a majority Harper will have the absolute and unstoppable power and will have to Pay the Piper.
These right-wing extremists will demand their social agenda be implemented and Harper 'can not and will not' refuse.
It's just that simple.
Harper answer on the abortion issue sounds like Ignatieff's answer on a co-alition.
Harper still doesn't believe Ignatieff - that's the way Harper thinks, his world view - statements are only made to attain power, once power is attained they mean nothing - just compare what Harper has said in '97 and '04 regarding coalitions and his party attaining power albeit with less seats than the Liberals. Or, the Income trust betrayal, etc.
If we want to see what an uninhibited Harper would do with a majority
We must view Harper in the same lens he views the world. His statements now mean nothing once he acquires a majority.
We simply should not believe Harper when he says otherwise now.
Also,
What happened to the Harper Summit money squandering in Clement's riding scandal and the Auditor General's Report
and the Report on the Afghan Detainee Scandal
Harper may find these 'too complex' to be discussed during an election and if I were Harper I might feel the same way.
But, these are vital to Canadians determining whether we can trust Harper in power and especially with a majority.
These Reports may very well tell us whether we can believe Harper on the abortion issue or anything. But then that's way we don't have them.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Behind Harper’s reluctance to revisit abortion issue
JOHN IBBITSON, Globe and Mail, Apr. 23, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/behind-harpers-reluctance-to-revisit-abortion-issue/article1996398/
Harper and the Con's have a core of 33% die-hard supporters. People who are at the extreme right of Canadian social, economic and political values. They have and will support Harper pretty much no matter what, provided he does not abandon his right-wing extremist views and intentions.
They have been very patient in the last 5 years while Harper has had a minority government and even 'understanding' that Harper could not simply come out and in the first 100 days, radically change the social landscape of Canada to the extreme right of the spectrum of Canadian values.
After all it's better to in power than out.
However, with a majority Harper will have the absolute and unstoppable power and will have to Pay the Piper.
These right-wing extremists will demand their social agenda be implemented and Harper 'can not and will not' refuse.
It's just that simple.
Harper answer on the abortion issue sounds like Ignatieff's answer on a co-alition.
Harper still doesn't believe Ignatieff - that's the way Harper thinks, his world view - statements are only made to attain power, once power is attained they mean nothing - just compare what Harper has said in '97 and '04 regarding coalitions and his party attaining power albeit with less seats than the Liberals. Or, the Income trust betrayal, etc.
If we want to see what an uninhibited Harper would do with a majority
We must view Harper in the same lens he views the world. His statements now mean nothing once he acquires a majority.
We simply should not believe Harper when he says otherwise now.
Also,
What happened to the Harper Summit money squandering in Clement's riding scandal and the Auditor General's Report
and the Report on the Afghan Detainee Scandal
Harper may find these 'too complex' to be discussed during an election and if I were Harper I might feel the same way.
But, these are vital to Canadians determining whether we can trust Harper in power and especially with a majority.
These Reports may very well tell us whether we can believe Harper on the abortion issue or anything. But then that's way we don't have them.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
22 April, 2011
- Let Not Our Children Regret We Were Ever Given A Turn At the Helm In Allowing Harper Power
- Let Not Our Children Regret We Were Ever Given A Turn At the Helm In Allowing Harper Power
Posted: 11:20 AM on April 22, 2011
(see below)
In response to the reply by jesse261 at 10:53am, to my post at: 10:50 AM on April 22, 2011
Without commenting on your bald assertions about Martin
The difference between Martin and Harper
Harper is a right wing extremist ideologue intolerant of anything and anyone that is not the same or gets in his way.
Giving the reigns of power to someone like Harper can only prove, and has proved, disastrous to the Canadian way of life, and our very social fiber,
which our forefathers spent their blood, sweat and tears building
and for which we are accountable to our children and our children's children
who will very well regret that we were ever given a turn at the helm because we allowed Harper power.
If Harper gets a majority - God save Canada
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Posted: 11:20 AM on April 22, 2011
(see below)
In response to the reply by jesse261 at 10:53am, to my post at: 10:50 AM on April 22, 2011
Without commenting on your bald assertions about Martin
The difference between Martin and Harper
Harper is a right wing extremist ideologue intolerant of anything and anyone that is not the same or gets in his way.
Giving the reigns of power to someone like Harper can only prove, and has proved, disastrous to the Canadian way of life, and our very social fiber,
which our forefathers spent their blood, sweat and tears building
and for which we are accountable to our children and our children's children
who will very well regret that we were ever given a turn at the helm because we allowed Harper power.
If Harper gets a majority - God save Canada
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- And as long as the Moderate Majority don't consolidate and don't vote, Harper will continue to drag Canada to the Right Extreme
Posted: 10:50 AM on April 22, 2011 The Globe and Mail
The Supreme Court: How a Harper majority could really change Canada, Adam Radwanski, Globe and Mail, April 22, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/the-supreme-court-how-a-harper-majority-could-really-change-canada/article1995432/
Choosing who sits on the Supreme Court of Canada is only one example of the exercise of executive power by the Prime Minister.
Appointing Senators is another - as we have all seen, ever after Harper promised that he would not simply appoint them.
(Toronto Star, 23 Dec.'08 - when Harper's future as PM was in doubt)
"Harper senators have blue hue
. . .
Harper whined on the weekend that he wanted to appoint elected people to the Senate but the provinces wouldn't go along with him, so he had no choice. But one is reminded of what Mulroney said to then prime minister John Turner about Senate appointments in a televised debate: 'You had an option, sir. You could have said "I'm not going to do that, it's wrong for Canada."'"
There are many, many examples, and a myriad of positions, of where the exercise of executive power by the Prime Minister is unchecked, unvetted, unannounced and in cases, unbeknownst to any kind of oversight by the people of Canada or their representatives.
In this insidious way Harper has been, and is, dragging Canada to the "Right' (ideologically speaking, as opposed to say morally) extreme
Harper can do this because he is Prime Minister and head of the Executive Branch Government, which in Canada can have a far greater impact on our lives than Parliament or the Judiciary (the two other branches).
These branches were intended to counterbalance each other.
However, the exercise of power by the PM pre-supposes that the PM has the best interest of all Canadians at heart and not a small minority lying at an extreme of our political spectrum.
Up until Harper this was generally the case.
But Harper is in power because
He and the Con's have a core (33%) of die-hard right-wing supporters who will support Harper no matter what - even if he appointed Carson Minister of Justice - someone make Harper promise he won't
And as long as the Moderate Majority don't consolidate and don't vote, Harper will continue to drag Canada to the Right extreme.
Just think if Harper had a majority - we could expect much, much worse.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
The Supreme Court: How a Harper majority could really change Canada, Adam Radwanski, Globe and Mail, April 22, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/the-supreme-court-how-a-harper-majority-could-really-change-canada/article1995432/
Choosing who sits on the Supreme Court of Canada is only one example of the exercise of executive power by the Prime Minister.
Appointing Senators is another - as we have all seen, ever after Harper promised that he would not simply appoint them.
(Toronto Star, 23 Dec.'08 - when Harper's future as PM was in doubt)
"Harper senators have blue hue
. . .
Harper whined on the weekend that he wanted to appoint elected people to the Senate but the provinces wouldn't go along with him, so he had no choice. But one is reminded of what Mulroney said to then prime minister John Turner about Senate appointments in a televised debate: 'You had an option, sir. You could have said "I'm not going to do that, it's wrong for Canada."'"
There are many, many examples, and a myriad of positions, of where the exercise of executive power by the Prime Minister is unchecked, unvetted, unannounced and in cases, unbeknownst to any kind of oversight by the people of Canada or their representatives.
In this insidious way Harper has been, and is, dragging Canada to the "Right' (ideologically speaking, as opposed to say morally) extreme
Harper can do this because he is Prime Minister and head of the Executive Branch Government, which in Canada can have a far greater impact on our lives than Parliament or the Judiciary (the two other branches).
These branches were intended to counterbalance each other.
However, the exercise of power by the PM pre-supposes that the PM has the best interest of all Canadians at heart and not a small minority lying at an extreme of our political spectrum.
Up until Harper this was generally the case.
But Harper is in power because
He and the Con's have a core (33%) of die-hard right-wing supporters who will support Harper no matter what - even if he appointed Carson Minister of Justice - someone make Harper promise he won't
And as long as the Moderate Majority don't consolidate and don't vote, Harper will continue to drag Canada to the Right extreme.
Just think if Harper had a majority - we could expect much, much worse.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- All Canadians should be asking themselves these questions and then voting
Posted: 10:03 AM on April 22, 2011 Globe and Mail
The senator, the port authority and the ‘big boss’ in Quebec, Daniel LeBlanc, Globe and Mail, Apr. 22, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-senator-the-tape-recordings-and-the-big-boss-in-quebec/article1995433/
The first thing to say is, of course, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. And that applies to this case as well.
(that's what I said about the In-Out scandal as well in Feb. It also applies to Carson, etc.)
However, when you read statements like the one attributed to Saudas yesterday regarding the funding, or lack thereof, of International Planned Parenthood:
"'Organizations like International Planned Parenthood or others that are willing to work with our government, we look forward to working with them as well on this important initiative,' he said."
(Winnipeg Free Press, 21 Apr.'11)
and all the other stuff you read about Saudas.
And Harper himself on whether he delivers on campaign promises:
(see: the video of Harper Q&A 21 Apr. at: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Canada/NL/1279609329/ID=1892271885)
[at 25:50]
when asked by the local CBC reporter regarding whether his commitment on the loan guaranty on the Muskrat Falls project was in jeopardy if Harper did not get a majority and his local candidates did not get elected
"a strong Conservative majority government will be able to deliver on those commitments. A minority Parliament where effectively a majority of seats is held by the Liberals, NDP and Bloc, can not and will not deliver on that commitment."
[at: 27:36 - 28:36]
What's a guy to think.
You have to ask yourself just exactly what is the real message behind Saudas saying
"willing to work with our government, we look forward to working with them"
in the context of funding
and Harper's statement regarding his campaign promises that without a strong majority he ". . . will not deliver on that commitment"
All Canadians should be asking themselves these questions and then voting.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
The senator, the port authority and the ‘big boss’ in Quebec, Daniel LeBlanc, Globe and Mail, Apr. 22, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-senator-the-tape-recordings-and-the-big-boss-in-quebec/article1995433/
The first thing to say is, of course, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. And that applies to this case as well.
(that's what I said about the In-Out scandal as well in Feb. It also applies to Carson, etc.)
However, when you read statements like the one attributed to Saudas yesterday regarding the funding, or lack thereof, of International Planned Parenthood:
"'Organizations like International Planned Parenthood or others that are willing to work with our government, we look forward to working with them as well on this important initiative,' he said."
(Winnipeg Free Press, 21 Apr.'11)
and all the other stuff you read about Saudas.
And Harper himself on whether he delivers on campaign promises:
(see: the video of Harper Q&A 21 Apr. at: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Canada/NL/1279609329/ID=1892271885)
[at 25:50]
when asked by the local CBC reporter regarding whether his commitment on the loan guaranty on the Muskrat Falls project was in jeopardy if Harper did not get a majority and his local candidates did not get elected
"a strong Conservative majority government will be able to deliver on those commitments. A minority Parliament where effectively a majority of seats is held by the Liberals, NDP and Bloc, can not and will not deliver on that commitment."
[at: 27:36 - 28:36]
What's a guy to think.
You have to ask yourself just exactly what is the real message behind Saudas saying
"willing to work with our government, we look forward to working with them"
in the context of funding
and Harper's statement regarding his campaign promises that without a strong majority he ". . . will not deliver on that commitment"
All Canadians should be asking themselves these questions and then voting.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
21 April, 2011
- Harper Approach - You Want Funding - Support His Right Wing Extremist Agenda
Posted: 10:59 AM on April 21, 2011
Ottawa cutting funds to Planned Parenthood, Tory MP says, ADRIAN MORROW, Globe and Mail, Apr. 21, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-cutting-funds-to-planned-parenthood-tory-mp-says/article1993971/comments/
As long as Harper and the Con's are in power they don't need to bring in legislation against abortion.
Harper and the Con's merely have to cut funding to reputable organizations that include abortion, and that is what they have been doing.
Soudas on the 'Muskoka Initiative' on child and maternal health.
'we have clearly laid out what our G8 initiative will focus on. Organizations like International Planned Parenthood or others that are willing to work with our government, we look forward to working with them as well on this important initiative,'"
The code words here are "willing to work with our government"
What exactly is Harper's approach to abortion as part of Muskoka Initiative - seems to me that it has been very emphatically excluded by Harper.
The Harper message is - if you include abortion you will not be supported by a Harper government.
Isn't that what was at the heart of the Oda 'not' contempt of Parliament scandal was all about - refusing finding to Kairos on ideological bases
"The organization [Kairos] promotes major actions to combat climate change . . .
Leading KAIROS member Churches, the United Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada, have a history of strong support for abortion access and for homosexual "marriage" and the acceptance of homosexual behaviour."
(Lifesitenews 22 Dec.'09)
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Ottawa cutting funds to Planned Parenthood, Tory MP says, ADRIAN MORROW, Globe and Mail, Apr. 21, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-cutting-funds-to-planned-parenthood-tory-mp-says/article1993971/comments/
As long as Harper and the Con's are in power they don't need to bring in legislation against abortion.
Harper and the Con's merely have to cut funding to reputable organizations that include abortion, and that is what they have been doing.
Soudas on the 'Muskoka Initiative' on child and maternal health.
'we have clearly laid out what our G8 initiative will focus on. Organizations like International Planned Parenthood or others that are willing to work with our government, we look forward to working with them as well on this important initiative,'"
The code words here are "willing to work with our government"
What exactly is Harper's approach to abortion as part of Muskoka Initiative - seems to me that it has been very emphatically excluded by Harper.
The Harper message is - if you include abortion you will not be supported by a Harper government.
Isn't that what was at the heart of the Oda 'not' contempt of Parliament scandal was all about - refusing finding to Kairos on ideological bases
"The organization [Kairos] promotes major actions to combat climate change . . .
Leading KAIROS member Churches, the United Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada, have a history of strong support for abortion access and for homosexual "marriage" and the acceptance of homosexual behaviour."
(Lifesitenews 22 Dec.'09)
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Planned Parenthood Funding Scandal - Here's a Bit of a Backgrounder
Posted: 10:58 AM on April 21, 2011
Ottawa cutting funds to Planned Parenthood, Tory MP says, ADRIAN MORROW, Globe and Mail, Apr. 21, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-cutting-funds-to-planned-parenthood-tory-mp-says/article1993971/comments/
Here's a bit of a backgrounder:
October 2009 – Brad Trost, Conservative MP, Saskatoon-Humboldt launches a Petition to Stop Federal Funding of Planned Parenthood:
“Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present in the House today petitions… They are calling upon this House to promote the values they cherish, which are Canadian values in support of pre-born life. They are particularly calling upon the Government of Canada to stop the funding of Planned Parenthood by CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, believing that CIDA should be concentrating on dealing with fighting poverty instead of concentrating on destroying human life.”
(MP Brad Trost, Hansard, October 5, 2009)
(http://theannaproject.ca/category/liberal/)
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Ottawa cutting funds to Planned Parenthood, Tory MP says, ADRIAN MORROW, Globe and Mail, Apr. 21, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-cutting-funds-to-planned-parenthood-tory-mp-says/article1993971/comments/
Here's a bit of a backgrounder:
October 2009 – Brad Trost, Conservative MP, Saskatoon-Humboldt launches a Petition to Stop Federal Funding of Planned Parenthood:
“Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present in the House today petitions… They are calling upon this House to promote the values they cherish, which are Canadian values in support of pre-born life. They are particularly calling upon the Government of Canada to stop the funding of Planned Parenthood by CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, believing that CIDA should be concentrating on dealing with fighting poverty instead of concentrating on destroying human life.”
(MP Brad Trost, Hansard, October 5, 2009)
(http://theannaproject.ca/category/liberal/)
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper - Just Exactly What Is He Planning For After The Election
Submitted: 10:48am, PDT, 21 Apr.'11 CBC
12:34pm, PDT, 21 Apr.'11 CBC
Trust me to keep N.L promises: Harper, CBC News Posted: Apr 21, 2011 11:42 AM NT Last Updated: Apr 21, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2011/04/21/nl-harper-secondvisit-421.html
and
2:35 PM on April 21, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/any-and-all-anti-abortion-legislation-will-be-defeated-harper-declares/article1994462/comments/
What Harper said
see: the video at: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Canada/NL/1279609329/ID=1892271885
[at 25:50]
when asked by the local CBC reporter regarding whether his commitment on the loan guaranty on the Muskrat Falls project was in jeopardy if Harper did not get a majority and his local candidates did not get elected
"a strong Conservative majority government will be able to deliver on those commitments. A minority Parliament where effectively a majority of seats is held by the Liberals, NDP and Bloc, can not and will not deliver on that commitment."
[at: 27:36 - 28:36]
There is nothing, I have heard anyway, about the Liberals, NDP or Bloc stating that they would not support this project
so when Harper says "will not deliver on that commitment"
he can only be referring to himself.
And, what he means when he says he "will not deliver on that commitment" - he won't even introduce it to try to get it passed if he has a minority of seats.
Harper is insisting that he will re-introduce his budget unchanged and uncompromising even if he has a minority and it is the main stay of his platform.
Harper should state just exactly what he is planning if he gets a minority of seats, especially if he is not going to try to implement his platform.
There is very little of more importance to this election than the answer to that question.
Will Harper delay to re-call Parliament - he's done that type of thing before.
Will Harper demand another election
effectively saying that the majority of Canadian can not have their representatives determine who runs this country - as he has been saying all along.
All Canadians need to know this, now, before it's too late.
excerpt: comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
12:34pm, PDT, 21 Apr.'11 CBC
Trust me to keep N.L promises: Harper, CBC News Posted: Apr 21, 2011 11:42 AM NT Last Updated: Apr 21, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2011/04/21/nl-harper-secondvisit-421.html
and
2:35 PM on April 21, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/any-and-all-anti-abortion-legislation-will-be-defeated-harper-declares/article1994462/comments/
What Harper said
see: the video at: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Canada/NL/1279609329/ID=1892271885
[at 25:50]
when asked by the local CBC reporter regarding whether his commitment on the loan guaranty on the Muskrat Falls project was in jeopardy if Harper did not get a majority and his local candidates did not get elected
"a strong Conservative majority government will be able to deliver on those commitments. A minority Parliament where effectively a majority of seats is held by the Liberals, NDP and Bloc, can not and will not deliver on that commitment."
[at: 27:36 - 28:36]
There is nothing, I have heard anyway, about the Liberals, NDP or Bloc stating that they would not support this project
so when Harper says "will not deliver on that commitment"
he can only be referring to himself.
And, what he means when he says he "will not deliver on that commitment" - he won't even introduce it to try to get it passed if he has a minority of seats.
Harper is insisting that he will re-introduce his budget unchanged and uncompromising even if he has a minority and it is the main stay of his platform.
Harper should state just exactly what he is planning if he gets a minority of seats, especially if he is not going to try to implement his platform.
There is very little of more importance to this election than the answer to that question.
Will Harper delay to re-call Parliament - he's done that type of thing before.
Will Harper demand another election
effectively saying that the majority of Canadian can not have their representatives determine who runs this country - as he has been saying all along.
All Canadians need to know this, now, before it's too late.
excerpt: comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
- NDP Surge In Quebec? - Ask The Campaign Teams There
Submitted: 6:48am, PDT, 21 Apr.'11 CBC
Bloc changes tactics to deal with NDP surge, CBC News Posted: Apr 21, 2011, 21 Apr.'11 CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/21/cv-election-ndp-quebec-803.html#
The Crop poll Showing an NDP Surge in Quebec is obviously unreliable.
However, the campaign teams for the Province and the various riding in Quebec would have to observe such a serge, if it is indeed real. And perhaps that explains why Layton is not getting carried away - which would be a mistake with possible disastrous results anyway, he is keeping on track which is what he should be doing.
On the other hand, this kind of thing can be a self-fulfilling prophecy - people think that the NDP are surging and jump on the band-wagon. You can't buy better PR that that, and it's not even an attack ad.
The issue is if there is a NDP surge are they simply taking votes away from the Liberal and Bloc or are they threatening to reduce the number of seats for the Harper and the Con's.
Obviously if they are causing a more serious splits in the opposition parties votes such a surge could actually work in Harper's favour and give him and the Con's more seats or even a majority.
excerpt: comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Bloc changes tactics to deal with NDP surge, CBC News Posted: Apr 21, 2011, 21 Apr.'11 CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/21/cv-election-ndp-quebec-803.html#
The Crop poll Showing an NDP Surge in Quebec is obviously unreliable.
However, the campaign teams for the Province and the various riding in Quebec would have to observe such a serge, if it is indeed real. And perhaps that explains why Layton is not getting carried away - which would be a mistake with possible disastrous results anyway, he is keeping on track which is what he should be doing.
On the other hand, this kind of thing can be a self-fulfilling prophecy - people think that the NDP are surging and jump on the band-wagon. You can't buy better PR that that, and it's not even an attack ad.
The issue is if there is a NDP surge are they simply taking votes away from the Liberal and Bloc or are they threatening to reduce the number of seats for the Harper and the Con's.
Obviously if they are causing a more serious splits in the opposition parties votes such a surge could actually work in Harper's favour and give him and the Con's more seats or even a majority.
excerpt: comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
20 April, 2011
- Harper's Post Election Strategy - All Canadians Need To Know, Now
Submitted: 9:34am, PDT, 20 Apr.'11 CBC
Tories to Ignatieff: 'Misquote us? Misquote you!' The transcript flap, blow-by-blow, April 19, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/tories-to-ignatieff-misquote-me-misquote-you.html
What is Harper's post election strategy.
We must all demand that Harper answer that question.
If the Con's gets a minority of seats
Harper will, obviously, demand to be made Prime Minister or demand another election - immediately.
But,
Who recalls Parliament and when does it have to be recalled.
This is not some theoretical musing.
As far as I know Parliament is only required by the Constitution to be called once a year (and practically speaking once a year is also needed to pass spending bills).
But does this apply to an election.
As we have seen in the past Harper is not above suspending Parliament in order to grasp and maintain power.
The party that was in power before the election remains in power after the election until Parliament elects a Party to select a Prime Minister.
This implies that it will be totally under the control of Harper.
If you think that Harper will easily simply say "ok guys, your turn", then you're simply completely out of touch with what's been going on in the last 5 years with Harper and his desire for power.
The phrase "who wins the election" is a misnomer
The election is for PM's who then represent us in Parliament.
Parliament, based on a majority of MP's then elects a Prime Minster.
If one party get a majority of seats then it is a done deal (normally).
But if no party gets a majority of seats the Party that runs the country must rely on other parties to obtain a majority of MP's to support them and it is by no means automatic.
Harper of course has so poisoned the relationships with the other Parties, to the point they could no longer tolerate his Contempt for Parliament and slight of Canadian Democracy and withdrew its confidence in him and his Con's
Harper obviously feels he will not be able to bring himself to approach another party with cap in hand to support him and his Con's.
So, what then.
Harper refusing to recall Parliament for fear he will not be voted in as Prime Minister and the parties that are truly supported by the majority of people prevented from taking their rightly place leading this great country of ours.
Or,
Harper demanding another election right after the end of this one.
All Canadians need to know this, now, before it's too late.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Tories to Ignatieff: 'Misquote us? Misquote you!' The transcript flap, blow-by-blow, April 19, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/tories-to-ignatieff-misquote-me-misquote-you.html
What is Harper's post election strategy.
We must all demand that Harper answer that question.
If the Con's gets a minority of seats
Harper will, obviously, demand to be made Prime Minister or demand another election - immediately.
But,
Who recalls Parliament and when does it have to be recalled.
This is not some theoretical musing.
As far as I know Parliament is only required by the Constitution to be called once a year (and practically speaking once a year is also needed to pass spending bills).
But does this apply to an election.
As we have seen in the past Harper is not above suspending Parliament in order to grasp and maintain power.
The party that was in power before the election remains in power after the election until Parliament elects a Party to select a Prime Minister.
This implies that it will be totally under the control of Harper.
If you think that Harper will easily simply say "ok guys, your turn", then you're simply completely out of touch with what's been going on in the last 5 years with Harper and his desire for power.
The phrase "who wins the election" is a misnomer
The election is for PM's who then represent us in Parliament.
Parliament, based on a majority of MP's then elects a Prime Minster.
If one party get a majority of seats then it is a done deal (normally).
But if no party gets a majority of seats the Party that runs the country must rely on other parties to obtain a majority of MP's to support them and it is by no means automatic.
Harper of course has so poisoned the relationships with the other Parties, to the point they could no longer tolerate his Contempt for Parliament and slight of Canadian Democracy and withdrew its confidence in him and his Con's
Harper obviously feels he will not be able to bring himself to approach another party with cap in hand to support him and his Con's.
So, what then.
Harper refusing to recall Parliament for fear he will not be voted in as Prime Minister and the parties that are truly supported by the majority of people prevented from taking their rightly place leading this great country of ours.
Or,
Harper demanding another election right after the end of this one.
All Canadians need to know this, now, before it's too late.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- If the facts were vectors, they all point to this being deliberate by Soudas and the Con's
Submitted: 7:47am, PDT, 20 Apr.'11 CBC
Tories to Ignatieff: 'Misquote us? Misquote you!' The transcript flap, blow-by-blow, April 19, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/tories-to-ignatieff-misquote-me-misquote-you.html
Oh and by the way did I mention:
The chances of Dimitri Soudas or the others in the Con war room not having actually viewed the Ignatieff interview before they released the attack ad is to me, remote (these 'transcripts' were taken from the broadcast - "Command News TV transcripts capture the closed caption feed provided by each network")
and the likelihood high that they were simply and deliberating taking advantage of what they were actually aware of was a mistake - something totally in line with my observation of how Soudas and the Con's operate generally.
Also, from this article is seems the source of the 'transcripts' is well know not to be that reliable, something that, in my view, Dimitri Soudas and the other Con's must be aware of, and perhaps use this source precisely for the purpose of misquoting.
This source is simply not comparable to the Globe and Mail, or MacLean's as a source, which are much more reliable.
If the facts were vectors, they all point to
this being deliberate by Soudas and the Con's
Harper is in this position (finishing with more seats that the other parties) not because the people of Canada want it. But because:
Harper has a core of die-hard, right-wing extremist supporters (approx.33%), that will vote for Harper pretty much no matter what - even if he were announce Carson as Justice Minister - someone make Harper promise he won't do that
If not but for the Will of Parliament then Where is the legitimacy in that.
It may be a political reality, but then so are dictatorships, but few claim them legitimate (except those in power, of course).
If we want to put an end to the Harper ways, the Moderate Majority must consolidate and get out and vote.
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Tories to Ignatieff: 'Misquote us? Misquote you!' The transcript flap, blow-by-blow, April 19, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/tories-to-ignatieff-misquote-me-misquote-you.html
Oh and by the way did I mention:
The chances of Dimitri Soudas or the others in the Con war room not having actually viewed the Ignatieff interview before they released the attack ad is to me, remote (these 'transcripts' were taken from the broadcast - "Command News TV transcripts capture the closed caption feed provided by each network")
and the likelihood high that they were simply and deliberating taking advantage of what they were actually aware of was a mistake - something totally in line with my observation of how Soudas and the Con's operate generally.
Also, from this article is seems the source of the 'transcripts' is well know not to be that reliable, something that, in my view, Dimitri Soudas and the other Con's must be aware of, and perhaps use this source precisely for the purpose of misquoting.
This source is simply not comparable to the Globe and Mail, or MacLean's as a source, which are much more reliable.
If the facts were vectors, they all point to
this being deliberate by Soudas and the Con's
Harper is in this position (finishing with more seats that the other parties) not because the people of Canada want it. But because:
Harper has a core of die-hard, right-wing extremist supporters (approx.33%), that will vote for Harper pretty much no matter what - even if he were announce Carson as Justice Minister - someone make Harper promise he won't do that
If not but for the Will of Parliament then Where is the legitimacy in that.
It may be a political reality, but then so are dictatorships, but few claim them legitimate (except those in power, of course).
If we want to put an end to the Harper ways, the Moderate Majority must consolidate and get out and vote.
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
- Harper In Reality Is Threatening To Force Another Election If He Gets a Minority
Submitted: 7:39am, PDT, 20 Apr.'11 CBC
- If the facts were vectors, they all point to this being deliberate by Soudas and the Con's
Tories to Ignatieff: 'Misquote us? Misquote you!' The transcript flap, blow-by-blow, April 19, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/tories-to-ignatieff-misquote-me-misquote-you.html
So, I guess we can take from this that if there is a minority and another party(s) are asked by the GG if they can form a government that Harper and the Con's would simply refuse to co-operate.
Liberal and Con's together is not that far fetched - just look at England.
Harper is all in favour of co-operation as long as it means everyone one else does what Harper wants and maintains power for him and the Con's.
For Harper and the Con's co-operation with other parties to support them in power is simply not in their right-wing extremist ideology.
Also
What Harper is really saying is if he gets a minority and unable to form a government
He will try to force another election.
He will ask the Governor General to call another election (keep in mind that this is the GG that Harper appointed and yet to demonstrate his hold on Canadian Democracy)
mere days after the end of this one.
Harper will try to use this to force the Opposition into allowing him to rule again.
Why should Canadians be held hostage by Harper.
Wouldn't it be better for Canada and all Canadians to simply not vote for Harper and the Con's
After all Harper is only supported by a minority of Canadians
The best solution for Canada and all Canadians is to have the Moderate Majority engage, get out and vote and close off Harper continuing to abuse Democracy and the Canadian way.
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
- If the facts were vectors, they all point to this being deliberate by Soudas and the Con's
Tories to Ignatieff: 'Misquote us? Misquote you!' The transcript flap, blow-by-blow, April 19, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/tories-to-ignatieff-misquote-me-misquote-you.html
So, I guess we can take from this that if there is a minority and another party(s) are asked by the GG if they can form a government that Harper and the Con's would simply refuse to co-operate.
Liberal and Con's together is not that far fetched - just look at England.
Harper is all in favour of co-operation as long as it means everyone one else does what Harper wants and maintains power for him and the Con's.
For Harper and the Con's co-operation with other parties to support them in power is simply not in their right-wing extremist ideology.
Also
What Harper is really saying is if he gets a minority and unable to form a government
He will try to force another election.
He will ask the Governor General to call another election (keep in mind that this is the GG that Harper appointed and yet to demonstrate his hold on Canadian Democracy)
mere days after the end of this one.
Harper will try to use this to force the Opposition into allowing him to rule again.
Why should Canadians be held hostage by Harper.
Wouldn't it be better for Canada and all Canadians to simply not vote for Harper and the Con's
After all Harper is only supported by a minority of Canadians
The best solution for Canada and all Canadians is to have the Moderate Majority engage, get out and vote and close off Harper continuing to abuse Democracy and the Canadian way.
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
19 April, 2011
- If Not But for the Will of Parliament then Where is the Legitimacy in A Harper Government
Submitted: 5:14pm, PDT, 19 Apr.'11 CBC
see below:
If I were Ignatieff I would simply answer that if Harper gets more seats than the other parties but still a minority I would simply take the Harper letter of '04 to the GG and attach it to my letterhead saying "GG, Please consider the attached"
How could Harper possible attack that.
Oh sorry, I forgot
That was then, this is now.
The only difference, of course:
'Then' was how Harper might attain power.
'Now' is how Harper might lose power.
Right after the election in Britain when the Liberal-Democratic Party and the Labour Party were discussing a co-alition
Harper would not have dared to make such utterances as he is now about 'loser can't form governments' for good reason, he would have been put in his place, and quite properly.
Harper has broken the sacred trust of the office of PM and instead of acting for the benefit of all Canadians and the best interests of Canada, as a nation, has, at all times, acted in an extreme partisan fashion for the benefit of a few, with Canada and Canadians be dam[redacted]ed.
Harper would continue to do so, if allowed, dragging, Canada to the extreme right, tearing asunder what it took our forefather generations to build, through their blood, sweat and tears.
Harper has a total disregard for the Moderate Majority of Canadians and Contempt for their duly elected representatives.
Where is the legitimacy in that.
Harper is in this position not because the people of Canada want it. But because:
Harper has a core of die-hard, right-wing extremist supporters (approx.33%), that will vote for Harper pretty much no matter what - even if he were announce Carson as Justice Minister - someone make Harper promise he won't do that
If not but for the Will of Parliament then Where is the legitimacy in that.
It may be a political reality, but then so are dictatorships, but few claim them legitimate (except those in power, of course).
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
see below:
If I were Ignatieff I would simply answer that if Harper gets more seats than the other parties but still a minority I would simply take the Harper letter of '04 to the GG and attach it to my letterhead saying "GG, Please consider the attached"
How could Harper possible attack that.
Oh sorry, I forgot
That was then, this is now.
The only difference, of course:
'Then' was how Harper might attain power.
'Now' is how Harper might lose power.
Right after the election in Britain when the Liberal-Democratic Party and the Labour Party were discussing a co-alition
Harper would not have dared to make such utterances as he is now about 'loser can't form governments' for good reason, he would have been put in his place, and quite properly.
Harper has broken the sacred trust of the office of PM and instead of acting for the benefit of all Canadians and the best interests of Canada, as a nation, has, at all times, acted in an extreme partisan fashion for the benefit of a few, with Canada and Canadians be dam[redacted]ed.
Harper would continue to do so, if allowed, dragging, Canada to the extreme right, tearing asunder what it took our forefather generations to build, through their blood, sweat and tears.
Harper has a total disregard for the Moderate Majority of Canadians and Contempt for their duly elected representatives.
Where is the legitimacy in that.
Harper is in this position not because the people of Canada want it. But because:
Harper has a core of die-hard, right-wing extremist supporters (approx.33%), that will vote for Harper pretty much no matter what - even if he were announce Carson as Justice Minister - someone make Harper promise he won't do that
If not but for the Will of Parliament then Where is the legitimacy in that.
It may be a political reality, but then so are dictatorships, but few claim them legitimate (except those in power, of course).
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper is Just Not Right (Morally or Legally) - Except In Some Kind of Right-Wing Extremist Sort of Way
Submitted: 3:45pm, PDT, 19 Apr.'11 CBC
Liberals could still govern if Harper wins minority: Ignatieff
Tories: Ignatieff's agenda to be PM 'trumps everything', CBC News Posted: Apr 19, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/19/cv-election-ignatieff-national.html#
What Harper means is even if he does not get a majority of seats and does not get a majority of votes,
but merely more seats than the other parties and a clear minority of votes
he has the right to form the government.
This is even if he does not have the confidence of Parliament and is only supported by a very clear minority of Canadians.
What Harper means is that if he do not get the confidence of Parliament then either he rules anyway or there is another election.
What Harper means is that the Governor General may not look for other options but must call another election.
This is simply not right, not a legality and not part of our constitution or constitutional traditions.
Let's have Harper state very clearly that Canadian law and tradition requires another election if he does not get a majority but merely more seats than the other parties.
Better simply don't vote Harper and put this anti-Canadian rhetoric to an end.
excerpt: comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Liberals could still govern if Harper wins minority: Ignatieff
Tories: Ignatieff's agenda to be PM 'trumps everything', CBC News Posted: Apr 19, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/19/cv-election-ignatieff-national.html#
What Harper means is even if he does not get a majority of seats and does not get a majority of votes,
but merely more seats than the other parties and a clear minority of votes
he has the right to form the government.
This is even if he does not have the confidence of Parliament and is only supported by a very clear minority of Canadians.
What Harper means is that if he do not get the confidence of Parliament then either he rules anyway or there is another election.
What Harper means is that the Governor General may not look for other options but must call another election.
This is simply not right, not a legality and not part of our constitution or constitutional traditions.
Let's have Harper state very clearly that Canadian law and tradition requires another election if he does not get a majority but merely more seats than the other parties.
Better simply don't vote Harper and put this anti-Canadian rhetoric to an end.
excerpt: comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
18 April, 2011
- What in the world does Canada need strike force stealth super- jets for - Just who are we planing to go to war with
Submitted: 11:25am, PDT, 18 Apr.'11, The Toronto Star
(see below)
Canada may need jets in the future but we don't need F-35's and we don't need to spend $30 b and counting on them either.
How can Canada be penalized for braking a contract when there isn't one in place.
It is a question of spending $30 billions of our tax dollars that could be used for important things like Health-care and education.
This is not buying camouflage or armed personnel vehicles and it is ludicrous to compare it. Not even Harper would try that one.
This is the larges military procurement in Canadian history and it is for "eye watering technology" that Canada simply does not need.
These are strike force, stealth super-jets.
What in the world does Canada need strike force stealth super- jets for.
Just who are we planing to go to war with
What purpose does the military have that they are not revealing
They won't even reveal the Statement of Operational Requirements they say justifies this mega-spending
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog comments
(see below)
Canada may need jets in the future but we don't need F-35's and we don't need to spend $30 b and counting on them either.
How can Canada be penalized for braking a contract when there isn't one in place.
It is a question of spending $30 billions of our tax dollars that could be used for important things like Health-care and education.
This is not buying camouflage or armed personnel vehicles and it is ludicrous to compare it. Not even Harper would try that one.
This is the larges military procurement in Canadian history and it is for "eye watering technology" that Canada simply does not need.
These are strike force, stealth super-jets.
What in the world does Canada need strike force stealth super- jets for.
Just who are we planing to go to war with
What purpose does the military have that they are not revealing
They won't even reveal the Statement of Operational Requirements they say justifies this mega-spending
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog comments
- Harper, The F-35's To Be Used For Search-and-Rescue - That's A Nice Way To Spend $30 Billion and counting
Submitted: 9:46am, PDT, 18 Apr.'11 Toronto Star
Engines included in F-35 deal, officials insist, Apr 17 2011, The Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/976138--engines-included-in-f-35-deal-officials-insist
"The DND documents, which outline answers to questions about the F-35, also note that the stealth fighter could be used in a secondary role for search-and-rescue." (Ottawa Cit 17 Apr.'11)
Canada’s F-35s: Engines not included, Government will be required to provide powerplant for stealth fighters, documents show, David Pugliese, The Ottawa Citizen April 17, 2011
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Canada+Engines+included/4629251/story.html
Am I reading that Right (morally as opposed to some right-wing extremist sort of way).
Now Harper and the Con's are trying to say we can use the Strike Force F-35 Stealth Fighters for search-and-rescue.
What,
For when someone gets lost in the arctic and we discover the hordes coming over the Pole to invade. Can't we just ask Santa and the elves to keep a look out. Wouldn't that be more reasonable.
Of course, Canada has no stated military objectives, no stated operations requirements i.e. no purpose and no excuse to use them. So, I guess that's as good a reason to spend $30 billion as any, or at least as good as the one where we are chasing Russian prop planes away.
U.S. defence specialist Winslow Wheeler, has warned that the extra cost of an engine could boost the price of an aircraft for Canada to around $148 million.
However, Paul Manson, has challenged this saying Wheeler lacks credibility since he is associated with a left wing organization.
But isn't Manson the ex-chairman of Lockheed Martin Canada, and former chief of the defence staff. And isn't Lockheed Martin the company going to make the F-35's.
(Ottawa Cit 17 Apr.'11)
Someone should ask Manson why his statements are credible, and what his interest in the whole thing is anyway.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Engines included in F-35 deal, officials insist, Apr 17 2011, The Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/976138--engines-included-in-f-35-deal-officials-insist
"The DND documents, which outline answers to questions about the F-35, also note that the stealth fighter could be used in a secondary role for search-and-rescue." (Ottawa Cit 17 Apr.'11)
Canada’s F-35s: Engines not included, Government will be required to provide powerplant for stealth fighters, documents show, David Pugliese, The Ottawa Citizen April 17, 2011
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Canada+Engines+included/4629251/story.html
Am I reading that Right (morally as opposed to some right-wing extremist sort of way).
Now Harper and the Con's are trying to say we can use the Strike Force F-35 Stealth Fighters for search-and-rescue.
What,
For when someone gets lost in the arctic and we discover the hordes coming over the Pole to invade. Can't we just ask Santa and the elves to keep a look out. Wouldn't that be more reasonable.
Of course, Canada has no stated military objectives, no stated operations requirements i.e. no purpose and no excuse to use them. So, I guess that's as good a reason to spend $30 billion as any, or at least as good as the one where we are chasing Russian prop planes away.
U.S. defence specialist Winslow Wheeler, has warned that the extra cost of an engine could boost the price of an aircraft for Canada to around $148 million.
However, Paul Manson, has challenged this saying Wheeler lacks credibility since he is associated with a left wing organization.
But isn't Manson the ex-chairman of Lockheed Martin Canada, and former chief of the defence staff. And isn't Lockheed Martin the company going to make the F-35's.
(Ottawa Cit 17 Apr.'11)
Someone should ask Manson why his statements are credible, and what his interest in the whole thing is anyway.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper: Oh and By the Way, Did I Mention, The F-35s' come Without Engines
- Harper: Oh and By the Way, Did I Mention, The F-35s' come Without Engines
Submitted: 7:58 am, PDT, 18 Apr.'11
The reasons Harper refused to give the details on costs of the F35's is becoming clearer and clearer - if Canadians knew the truth about the real cost of the F35's he would loose the election. It's just that simple.
Mr. Sullivan has refuted the argument that Canada purchasing the plane at the height of production will reduce the cost.
In fact, the cost will remain higher until the Americans recoup all their costs and the cheapest time to purchase is at the end of the production where it is all profits.
Perhaps we should look at the price tag other countries purchasing at the same time and see if they are getting them for $75 m.
no engines . . .hhhmmmmm
Harper's master plan is becoming clear.
Canada has no stated military objectives, no stated operations requirements i.e. no objective and no excuse to use them.
So who needs engines, cut the engines and keep the price down.
Why is the DND saying
"Ottawa has committed approximately $9 billion to the acquisition of 65 F-35 aircraft"
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol10/no4/14-shadwick-eng.asp
what else is Harper hiding/lying about.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog comments
Submitted: 7:58 am, PDT, 18 Apr.'11
The reasons Harper refused to give the details on costs of the F35's is becoming clearer and clearer - if Canadians knew the truth about the real cost of the F35's he would loose the election. It's just that simple.
Mr. Sullivan has refuted the argument that Canada purchasing the plane at the height of production will reduce the cost.
In fact, the cost will remain higher until the Americans recoup all their costs and the cheapest time to purchase is at the end of the production where it is all profits.
Perhaps we should look at the price tag other countries purchasing at the same time and see if they are getting them for $75 m.
no engines . . .hhhmmmmm
Harper's master plan is becoming clear.
Canada has no stated military objectives, no stated operations requirements i.e. no objective and no excuse to use them.
So who needs engines, cut the engines and keep the price down.
Why is the DND saying
"Ottawa has committed approximately $9 billion to the acquisition of 65 F-35 aircraft"
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol10/no4/14-shadwick-eng.asp
what else is Harper hiding/lying about.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog comments
- "batteries, ooops, sorry typo, engine not included". Harper, read the box!
Submitted: 7:43am, PDT, 18 Apr.'11 - The Toronto Star
Engines included in F-35 deal, officials insist, Apr 17 2011, The Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/976138--engines-included-in-f-35-deal-officials-insist
If Canada can buy the planes at $75 m, but they actually will cost around $110 - $150 m and counting. Perhaps we should buy some at $75 m and sell them back to the US at $100 m and make a tidy little profit - I could go for that.
No engines???
Well that could add to the cost, couldn't it?
When asked about whether Canada's F35's would cost $75 million (as claimed by Harper) Mike Sullivan, director of acquisition management at the US General Accountability Office said he doesn't know where that number came from "That's not a number that I am familiar with at all,"(CBC, 29 Mar.'11)
You've got the right (morally) Mr. Sullivan and you know what.
Canadians don't know where that number comes from either because Harper refused to give us.
Harper was so determined that we don't have the facts that he was found in contempt of Parliament (for our American audience read 'impeached').
The reasons Harper refused is becoming clearer and clearer - if Canadians knew the truth about the real cost of the F35's, he would loose.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog comments
Engines included in F-35 deal, officials insist, Apr 17 2011, The Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/976138--engines-included-in-f-35-deal-officials-insist
If Canada can buy the planes at $75 m, but they actually will cost around $110 - $150 m and counting. Perhaps we should buy some at $75 m and sell them back to the US at $100 m and make a tidy little profit - I could go for that.
No engines???
Well that could add to the cost, couldn't it?
When asked about whether Canada's F35's would cost $75 million (as claimed by Harper) Mike Sullivan, director of acquisition management at the US General Accountability Office said he doesn't know where that number came from "That's not a number that I am familiar with at all,"(CBC, 29 Mar.'11)
You've got the right (morally) Mr. Sullivan and you know what.
Canadians don't know where that number comes from either because Harper refused to give us.
Harper was so determined that we don't have the facts that he was found in contempt of Parliament (for our American audience read 'impeached').
The reasons Harper refused is becoming clearer and clearer - if Canadians knew the truth about the real cost of the F35's, he would loose.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog comments
17 April, 2011
- You May Be Sensing My Reaction to the Harper Insults which are, simply, devoid of a foundation in truth
POsted: Lloyd Macilquham cicblog
4:27 PM on April 17, 2011
(see below)
Comment to Davidovich 3:30 PM on April 17, 2011 who was replying to my comment, Lloyd Macilquham cicblog , 2:14 PM on April 17, 2011
To Davidovich:
We must hold Harper's feet to the Fire of Truth, Expose His Actions to the Light of Democracy
The whole purpose of my comment is to present others who care about Canada a balance of truth and reality to offset the gross distortions and misrepresentations of Harper and the Con's.
If it is lengthy it is only because there is simply so much of importance to bring to people's attention - that's Harper doing, not mine.
What Harper says is quite alarming in the light of truth.
And perhaps that is what you are sensing -
sheer unadulterated shock and righteous indignation at the Harper insults, to my intelligence, my sense of right (morally, that is, and not in some kind of right wing-extremist fashion), my integrity, my loyalty to Canada and things Canadians hold of value, Health-care not the least of which, which are, simply, devoid of a foundation in truth.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
4:27 PM on April 17, 2011
(see below)
Comment to Davidovich 3:30 PM on April 17, 2011 who was replying to my comment, Lloyd Macilquham cicblog , 2:14 PM on April 17, 2011
To Davidovich:
We must hold Harper's feet to the Fire of Truth, Expose His Actions to the Light of Democracy
The whole purpose of my comment is to present others who care about Canada a balance of truth and reality to offset the gross distortions and misrepresentations of Harper and the Con's.
If it is lengthy it is only because there is simply so much of importance to bring to people's attention - that's Harper doing, not mine.
What Harper says is quite alarming in the light of truth.
And perhaps that is what you are sensing -
sheer unadulterated shock and righteous indignation at the Harper insults, to my intelligence, my sense of right (morally, that is, and not in some kind of right wing-extremist fashion), my integrity, my loyalty to Canada and things Canadians hold of value, Health-care not the least of which, which are, simply, devoid of a foundation in truth.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- If Harper Gets a Majority He Will Pay the Piper - and We'll be the Ones to Suffer, Literally
Posted: 2:17 PM on April 17, 2011 Globe and Mail
Ignatieff would call quick health care summit, Bill Curry, Globe and Mail Update, Apr. 17, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-would-call-quick-health-care-summit/article1988620/comments/
Liberals drop gloves with attack ad on Harper’s ‘secret’ health agenda, John Ibbitson, Globe and Mail, April 16, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberals-drop-gloves-with-attack-ad-on-harpers-secret-health-agenda/article1988246/
Either Canada implements right-wing extremist policies by electing Steven Harper or Canada has a health care system that Canadians can rely on.
It's just that simple.
Just exactly what has Harper said about Health Care anyway.
Harper simply states in the budget that Health Care transfers after 2013 - 2014 are subject to change
You got that 'Right'.
Since then Harper has stated: "This government has been very clear, not just in this document in black and white but in all our budgets, we are planning on a six per cent ongoing increase for health transfers," (CBC, 8 Apr.'11)
There is a big difference between "plan to" and "promise to".
Plan to by its very meaning implies that it may not come to fruition and even that it could change at a whim.
Also, this statement is not say that Harper will continue 6% beyond the expiry of the Health-Care Accord.
It's scary to have the likes of Harper say he "plans to" - since even when he says he promises to as with the Income trust affair.
Harper in his magisterial magnanimity apparently won't cut the 6% increases now. Considering this is part of the agreement with the Provinces and so legally he can't . . . sorry I'm dealing with the guy who makes the laws
Also, Harper does not need to cut the 6% since it ends in 2014 with the end of the Health Accord with the Provinces.
TO say you are going to 'maintaining the 6% increases' only applies till 2014 since at that time they end.
The issue is what would he do after that.
When you look at the 10's of billions Harper wants to spend on his criminal and military policies, the money won't be there for Health care.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Ignatieff would call quick health care summit, Bill Curry, Globe and Mail Update, Apr. 17, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-would-call-quick-health-care-summit/article1988620/comments/
Liberals drop gloves with attack ad on Harper’s ‘secret’ health agenda, John Ibbitson, Globe and Mail, April 16, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberals-drop-gloves-with-attack-ad-on-harpers-secret-health-agenda/article1988246/
Either Canada implements right-wing extremist policies by electing Steven Harper or Canada has a health care system that Canadians can rely on.
It's just that simple.
Just exactly what has Harper said about Health Care anyway.
Harper simply states in the budget that Health Care transfers after 2013 - 2014 are subject to change
You got that 'Right'.
Since then Harper has stated: "This government has been very clear, not just in this document in black and white but in all our budgets, we are planning on a six per cent ongoing increase for health transfers," (CBC, 8 Apr.'11)
There is a big difference between "plan to" and "promise to".
Plan to by its very meaning implies that it may not come to fruition and even that it could change at a whim.
Also, this statement is not say that Harper will continue 6% beyond the expiry of the Health-Care Accord.
It's scary to have the likes of Harper say he "plans to" - since even when he says he promises to as with the Income trust affair.
Harper in his magisterial magnanimity apparently won't cut the 6% increases now. Considering this is part of the agreement with the Provinces and so legally he can't . . . sorry I'm dealing with the guy who makes the laws
Also, Harper does not need to cut the 6% since it ends in 2014 with the end of the Health Accord with the Provinces.
TO say you are going to 'maintaining the 6% increases' only applies till 2014 since at that time they end.
The issue is what would he do after that.
When you look at the 10's of billions Harper wants to spend on his criminal and military policies, the money won't be there for Health care.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper on Health Care - Is there A Lie Detector in the House
Posted: 2:14 PM on April 17, 2011 Globe and Mail
Ignatieff would call quick health care summit, Bill Curry, Globe and Mail Update, Apr. 17, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-would-call-quick-health-care-summit/article1988620/comments/
Liberals drop gloves with attack ad on Harper’s ‘secret’ health agenda, John Ibbitson, Globe and Mail, April 16, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberals-drop-gloves-with-attack-ad-on-harpers-secret-health-agenda/article1988246/
If the facts were 'vectors' they all point to:
Harper eliminating the Health Care and/or, Equalization and/or Social Transfers in 2014, or seriously gut them.
That is the only way Harper economics can work
A review of the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer in 3 Nov.'10 shows that continuing with the Harper and Con economic policies and spending, there is very little chance the budget will be balance by '14-'15, for one reason the 6% transfer for health care being unsustainable under Harper's economic policies
That is the only course that fits into Harper core set of values, ideology and political background.
In the financial crisis of the mid '90's when Moody's, and others, was threatening to reduce Canada's credit rating to third world status because of the deficit left by Mulroney and the Tory's
Harper was all in favour of cutting Health-Care and transfer payments to eliminate the deficit and in fact attacked the Liberal for not cutting Health-care and transfer payments enough as a review of Hansand will show.
For example:
" Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
He will know that despite his assurances, which are widely believed, that the government will meet its short term targets, a downgrade of Canada's credit rating now appears to be inevitable. . . .
Will the minister admit that his targets, whether or not they are met, are totally inadequate? That is what the markets are saying. "
(Hansard, Friday, February 17, 1995)
Also,
"Harper has been a member of the National Citizens Coalition for almost two decades — and it was founded explicitly to oppose publicly funded, universal Medicare. He ran the organization from 1998-2002, during his political hiatus.";
and,
"In a response to the 2002 Throne Speech, Mr. Harper said: 'A government monopoly is not the only way to deliver health care to Canadians."
http://www.harperindex.ca/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=00229
Stephen Harper's speech to the Council for National Policy, June 1997:
"First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term . . ."
When confronted with what he say a while ago he quipped that he was just joking - some joke. When you read the speech it doesn't sound like he's joking.
That was only in 2002.
We're not talking in the 60's, 70's or 80's as what Harper has to do mud sling at the Liberals.
We're talking current.
The above reflects what really lurks in the hearts of Harper and his Con's, the fundamental belief that lies at the heart of Harper and his supporters.
This may have been covered up in some kind of cosmetic way, while Harper has a minority in order for his to maintain power.
But, you can betcha, it will be uncovered, and pronto, if Harper were to get a majority.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Ignatieff would call quick health care summit, Bill Curry, Globe and Mail Update, Apr. 17, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-would-call-quick-health-care-summit/article1988620/comments/
Liberals drop gloves with attack ad on Harper’s ‘secret’ health agenda, John Ibbitson, Globe and Mail, April 16, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberals-drop-gloves-with-attack-ad-on-harpers-secret-health-agenda/article1988246/
If the facts were 'vectors' they all point to:
Harper eliminating the Health Care and/or, Equalization and/or Social Transfers in 2014, or seriously gut them.
That is the only way Harper economics can work
A review of the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer in 3 Nov.'10 shows that continuing with the Harper and Con economic policies and spending, there is very little chance the budget will be balance by '14-'15, for one reason the 6% transfer for health care being unsustainable under Harper's economic policies
That is the only course that fits into Harper core set of values, ideology and political background.
In the financial crisis of the mid '90's when Moody's, and others, was threatening to reduce Canada's credit rating to third world status because of the deficit left by Mulroney and the Tory's
Harper was all in favour of cutting Health-Care and transfer payments to eliminate the deficit and in fact attacked the Liberal for not cutting Health-care and transfer payments enough as a review of Hansand will show.
For example:
" Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
He will know that despite his assurances, which are widely believed, that the government will meet its short term targets, a downgrade of Canada's credit rating now appears to be inevitable. . . .
Will the minister admit that his targets, whether or not they are met, are totally inadequate? That is what the markets are saying. "
(Hansard, Friday, February 17, 1995)
Also,
"Harper has been a member of the National Citizens Coalition for almost two decades — and it was founded explicitly to oppose publicly funded, universal Medicare. He ran the organization from 1998-2002, during his political hiatus.";
and,
"In a response to the 2002 Throne Speech, Mr. Harper said: 'A government monopoly is not the only way to deliver health care to Canadians."
http://www.harperindex.ca/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=00229
Stephen Harper's speech to the Council for National Policy, June 1997:
"First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term . . ."
When confronted with what he say a while ago he quipped that he was just joking - some joke. When you read the speech it doesn't sound like he's joking.
That was only in 2002.
We're not talking in the 60's, 70's or 80's as what Harper has to do mud sling at the Liberals.
We're talking current.
The above reflects what really lurks in the hearts of Harper and his Con's, the fundamental belief that lies at the heart of Harper and his supporters.
This may have been covered up in some kind of cosmetic way, while Harper has a minority in order for his to maintain power.
But, you can betcha, it will be uncovered, and pronto, if Harper were to get a majority.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
15 April, 2011
- Only Harper Knows What Evil Lurks in the Heart of the Summit Spending & Afghan Detainee Scandals Reports
submitted: 9:18am, PDT, 15 Apr.'11 CBC News
Re-Submitted: 2:13pm, PDT 15 Apr.'11
(first time it was not posted - go figure)
Ignatieff wants Afghan documents released
CBC News, Apr 15, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/15/cv-election-afghanfriday.html#
It is very convenient for Harper that there is an election
You'd almost think that Harper intentionally manipulated things to have it now.
The facts are Harper knew that both these reports were scheduled to be released now
- the one by the AG slamming (apparently) the Harper spending $50 m to help Tony Clement
and,
- the Afghan Detainee transfer scandal - the scandal where Harper showed so much contempt for our democratic institutions by refusing to release the documents with the information of which we have a perfect right to know.
and
Harper knows what evil lurks in the heart of these Reports
This explains why Harper refused to release the information necessary to see just how many billions will be squandered on implementing the Con ideologically based, and rationality devoid, criminal policies and military policies.
Harper and the Con's say they want these Reports released but have done nothing to get them released. Harper says that he released the information on the costs of imposing the Con ideology on Canadians. But, he hasn't.
Harper does not want the good people of Canada to know the truth especially during the election when knowing what Harper and the Con's have been running this great country of ours is vital
the reason - Harper wouldn't have a hope in He[redacted]l of being re-elected.
Harper feels he can do whatever he wants since
he has a core of die-hard, right-wing extremist supporters (approx.33%) that will vote for Harper pretty much no matter what
- The Moderate Majority are disengaged and so don't vote and they are not consolidated.
If we want to put an end to Harper's ways, the Moderate majority must consolidate and get out and vote.
It's just that simple.
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Re-Submitted: 2:13pm, PDT 15 Apr.'11
(first time it was not posted - go figure)
Ignatieff wants Afghan documents released
CBC News, Apr 15, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/15/cv-election-afghanfriday.html#
It is very convenient for Harper that there is an election
You'd almost think that Harper intentionally manipulated things to have it now.
The facts are Harper knew that both these reports were scheduled to be released now
- the one by the AG slamming (apparently) the Harper spending $50 m to help Tony Clement
and,
- the Afghan Detainee transfer scandal - the scandal where Harper showed so much contempt for our democratic institutions by refusing to release the documents with the information of which we have a perfect right to know.
and
Harper knows what evil lurks in the heart of these Reports
This explains why Harper refused to release the information necessary to see just how many billions will be squandered on implementing the Con ideologically based, and rationality devoid, criminal policies and military policies.
Harper and the Con's say they want these Reports released but have done nothing to get them released. Harper says that he released the information on the costs of imposing the Con ideology on Canadians. But, he hasn't.
Harper does not want the good people of Canada to know the truth especially during the election when knowing what Harper and the Con's have been running this great country of ours is vital
the reason - Harper wouldn't have a hope in He[redacted]l of being re-elected.
Harper feels he can do whatever he wants since
he has a core of die-hard, right-wing extremist supporters (approx.33%) that will vote for Harper pretty much no matter what
- The Moderate Majority are disengaged and so don't vote and they are not consolidated.
If we want to put an end to Harper's ways, the Moderate majority must consolidate and get out and vote.
It's just that simple.
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
- Harper on Freedom Of The Press - Yah, Sure, But Not In My Backyard
Posted: 10:24 AM on April 15, 2011
William Kaplan, Stephen Harper’s five-question limit, William Kaplan, Globe and Mail, Friday, Apr. 15, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/stephen-harpers-five-question-limit/article1985570/
"Members of the media were predictably indignant. Paul Wells, of Maclean’s, speaking on April 5 on a morning radio show, lamented the restriction: 'The fact is we can’t ask the Prime Minister about real situations that concern real people, we can’t press the Prime Minister for straight answers on things like the cost of his programs, promises he made in the past he hasn’t kept, things like that.'"
I think implicit in Harper's actions is reprisal.
We all know it.
We have all seen it many times.
Vicious personal attacks on the good character of any who dare to stand up to Harper and the Con's, on anyone who dares to speak out.
One possibility that we must consider is:
if the reporters stand up to Harper now, and Harper becomes Prime Minister again, they as individual reporters would suffer some kind of direct reprisal from Harper - like total snubbing - yah, like Harper's ever employed such controlling and manipulating tactics before - ha, ha, ha.
Then there is the media outlet the reporters work for.
Harper and the Con's spread around a lot of money not only on their vicious attack ads but also of all our hard earned tax money on their propagandizement - Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine Western democracies have seen in recent history.
What reporter can suffer such an attack and snubbing on their careers.
What media outlet can suffer such snubbing to their bottom line.
We should all keep in mind that SH-iteration:
'The media in Democracies should: "shine a light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable” '
Although,
we all know that Stephen Harper was being Severely Hypocritical when he said this.
One of the prime principles of spin Harper employs is to take a weakness and try to turn it into a strength, to take a flaw and make it the opponent's
Harper feels he can do whatever he wants since
he has a core of die-hard, right-wing extremist supporters (approx.33%) that will vote for Harper pretty much no matter what
If Canadians want to put an end to Harper's ways, the Moderate Majority must consolidate and get out and vote.
It's just that simple.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
William Kaplan, Stephen Harper’s five-question limit, William Kaplan, Globe and Mail, Friday, Apr. 15, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/stephen-harpers-five-question-limit/article1985570/
"Members of the media were predictably indignant. Paul Wells, of Maclean’s, speaking on April 5 on a morning radio show, lamented the restriction: 'The fact is we can’t ask the Prime Minister about real situations that concern real people, we can’t press the Prime Minister for straight answers on things like the cost of his programs, promises he made in the past he hasn’t kept, things like that.'"
I think implicit in Harper's actions is reprisal.
We all know it.
We have all seen it many times.
Vicious personal attacks on the good character of any who dare to stand up to Harper and the Con's, on anyone who dares to speak out.
One possibility that we must consider is:
if the reporters stand up to Harper now, and Harper becomes Prime Minister again, they as individual reporters would suffer some kind of direct reprisal from Harper - like total snubbing - yah, like Harper's ever employed such controlling and manipulating tactics before - ha, ha, ha.
Then there is the media outlet the reporters work for.
Harper and the Con's spread around a lot of money not only on their vicious attack ads but also of all our hard earned tax money on their propagandizement - Harper and the Con's have developed the biggest propaganda machine Western democracies have seen in recent history.
What reporter can suffer such an attack and snubbing on their careers.
What media outlet can suffer such snubbing to their bottom line.
We should all keep in mind that SH-iteration:
'The media in Democracies should: "shine a light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable” '
Although,
we all know that Stephen Harper was being Severely Hypocritical when he said this.
One of the prime principles of spin Harper employs is to take a weakness and try to turn it into a strength, to take a flaw and make it the opponent's
Harper feels he can do whatever he wants since
he has a core of die-hard, right-wing extremist supporters (approx.33%) that will vote for Harper pretty much no matter what
If Canadians want to put an end to Harper's ways, the Moderate Majority must consolidate and get out and vote.
It's just that simple.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
14 April, 2011
- Stevie, you got some 'splainin' to do
Submitted: 10:25am,PDT, 14 Apr.'11, CBC News
Fact-checking the leaders' debate, By Reality Check Team on April 12, 2011 5:59 PM , CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/realitycheck/2011/04/fact-checking-the-leaders-debate.html
Let me know if I'm not 'right' (morally that is, as opposed to in a right-wing extremist sort of way)
But if I recall Harper in the debate stated categorically that Immigration intake rates have risen in all categories.
However, the Immigration intake rates this year have been, apparently, cut 5%, with sponsorships of parents cut by 31%
As stated in the CBC article of 14 Feb.'11: "Immigrant visas to drop 5%: records
Cuts would most affect overseas parents, grandparents"
http://www.cbc.ca/m/rich/politics/story/2011/02/12/canada-immigration-rates.html
"Figures from Citizenship and Immigration Canada show the government will issue about 11,000 visas
this year to parents and grandparents of Canadian residents, down from more than 16,000 last year.
(Tom Hanson/Canadian Press) Among the hardest hit by the lower immigration targets will be parents
and grandparents seeking to join their children in Canada, according to numbers obtained from the
Citizenship and Immigration Department through the Access to Information Act.
The figures indicate the government will issue about 11,000 family reunification visas for parents
and grandparents overseas, down from more than 16,000 last year."
This was revealed through one of those accursed Access To Information requests that Harper seems to have such an aversion - go figure, the information obtaioned is actually quite interesting and important to understanding just exactly what Harper and his Con's are up to - since they simply won't give us the straight truth directly.
It may be in some kind of sharp dealings sort of way Harper was not technically lying. However, at the very least it seems it was deceitful since, if I recall, the context was in a discuss regarding these very cuts to sponsorship of parents.
I find that a lot of what Harper says has no basis in truth or is designed to deceive if not outright misrepresent.
Harper's version of the 2004 Letter is a prime example of this.
The same goes for his statement that he had given all the information regarding the costs of his criminal legislation and F35 purchase.
Also, Duceppe raised a very good point. Harper seems to be referring to a contract in the purchase of the F35's. But Harper refused to confirm or deny it.
the DND is saying
"Ottawa has committed approximately $9 billion to the acquisition of 65 F-35 aircraft"
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol10/no4/14-shadwick-eng.asp
Harper is hiding something here and he should have revealed it in the debate.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Fact-checking the leaders' debate, By Reality Check Team on April 12, 2011 5:59 PM , CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/realitycheck/2011/04/fact-checking-the-leaders-debate.html
Let me know if I'm not 'right' (morally that is, as opposed to in a right-wing extremist sort of way)
But if I recall Harper in the debate stated categorically that Immigration intake rates have risen in all categories.
However, the Immigration intake rates this year have been, apparently, cut 5%, with sponsorships of parents cut by 31%
As stated in the CBC article of 14 Feb.'11: "Immigrant visas to drop 5%: records
Cuts would most affect overseas parents, grandparents"
http://www.cbc.ca/m/rich/politics/story/2011/02/12/canada-immigration-rates.html
"Figures from Citizenship and Immigration Canada show the government will issue about 11,000 visas
this year to parents and grandparents of Canadian residents, down from more than 16,000 last year.
(Tom Hanson/Canadian Press) Among the hardest hit by the lower immigration targets will be parents
and grandparents seeking to join their children in Canada, according to numbers obtained from the
Citizenship and Immigration Department through the Access to Information Act.
The figures indicate the government will issue about 11,000 family reunification visas for parents
and grandparents overseas, down from more than 16,000 last year."
This was revealed through one of those accursed Access To Information requests that Harper seems to have such an aversion - go figure, the information obtaioned is actually quite interesting and important to understanding just exactly what Harper and his Con's are up to - since they simply won't give us the straight truth directly.
It may be in some kind of sharp dealings sort of way Harper was not technically lying. However, at the very least it seems it was deceitful since, if I recall, the context was in a discuss regarding these very cuts to sponsorship of parents.
I find that a lot of what Harper says has no basis in truth or is designed to deceive if not outright misrepresent.
Harper's version of the 2004 Letter is a prime example of this.
The same goes for his statement that he had given all the information regarding the costs of his criminal legislation and F35 purchase.
Also, Duceppe raised a very good point. Harper seems to be referring to a contract in the purchase of the F35's. But Harper refused to confirm or deny it.
the DND is saying
"Ottawa has committed approximately $9 billion to the acquisition of 65 F-35 aircraft"
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol10/no4/14-shadwick-eng.asp
Harper is hiding something here and he should have revealed it in the debate.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
13 April, 2011
- It's just this simple: The more money that remains and is spent in Canada = the more jobs
Submitted 7:42am, 13 Apr.'11 CBC News
Leaders make debate pitches, trade barbs, Under attack, Harper appeals for Tory majority, CBC News, : Apr 12, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/12/cv-election-debate-main.html#
30 - 50% of the Corp tax cuts go to Oil and Banking companies.
Every time I pay $1.30 a litre at the pump I ask myself
'Why do the Oil companies need a break?'
Every time I hear about Bank quarterly profits I ask myself
'Why do the banks need a break?'
I need a break - from their high profits
We do not have to reduce taxes to attract the Oil companies to Canada.
We do not have to reduce their taxes to attract their investment.
It's just that simple.
There is only one reason they come to Canada to invest - we have Oil, sorry I mean Alberta has Oil, and the price of Oil is so high. Now that Obama has approved Canada as a source of Oil we, I mean Alberta, have no concern whatsoever.
Also, we do not have to reduce taxes to attract the Banks. The Banks are already in Canada - they are Canadian and they were here before Harper was.
The Canadian Banks make huge profits and don't need more to be attracted. Also, they use the money to make foreign investments, to expand in the International market, not the Canadian market - just ask the president of the TD bank when he is explaining why TD needs such huge profits.
The big thing about banks in Canada is the regulations that are in place that have made them strong, have been a huge factor in Canada weathering the recession -
and these regulations are the direct result of a Liberal government and were in place before Harper came into power.
There are two other thing to keep in mind
- A large per centage of these windfall profits (after tax) go outside Canada because of the extent the companies are foreign owned (esp Oil Corp) and make foreign investments (esp Canadian banks).
Also, how many more Oil companies and how many more banks will we attract and how much more of their investment because of these tax cuts - de minimus
So, the tax cuts may stimulate some countries economy but as far as Canada is concerned it is '10 cents on the dollar'
If this $6 billion a year is invested in things like health care, education, child care, we get 100 cents on the dollar remaining in Canada - an order of magnitude larger than the Corp tax reduction.
The Basic Equation is:
The more money that remains in Canada = the more is spent in Canada = the more Canadian wages it supports = the more jobs
It's just that simple
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Leaders make debate pitches, trade barbs, Under attack, Harper appeals for Tory majority, CBC News, : Apr 12, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/12/cv-election-debate-main.html#
30 - 50% of the Corp tax cuts go to Oil and Banking companies.
Every time I pay $1.30 a litre at the pump I ask myself
'Why do the Oil companies need a break?'
Every time I hear about Bank quarterly profits I ask myself
'Why do the banks need a break?'
I need a break - from their high profits
We do not have to reduce taxes to attract the Oil companies to Canada.
We do not have to reduce their taxes to attract their investment.
It's just that simple.
There is only one reason they come to Canada to invest - we have Oil, sorry I mean Alberta has Oil, and the price of Oil is so high. Now that Obama has approved Canada as a source of Oil we, I mean Alberta, have no concern whatsoever.
Also, we do not have to reduce taxes to attract the Banks. The Banks are already in Canada - they are Canadian and they were here before Harper was.
The Canadian Banks make huge profits and don't need more to be attracted. Also, they use the money to make foreign investments, to expand in the International market, not the Canadian market - just ask the president of the TD bank when he is explaining why TD needs such huge profits.
The big thing about banks in Canada is the regulations that are in place that have made them strong, have been a huge factor in Canada weathering the recession -
and these regulations are the direct result of a Liberal government and were in place before Harper came into power.
There are two other thing to keep in mind
- A large per centage of these windfall profits (after tax) go outside Canada because of the extent the companies are foreign owned (esp Oil Corp) and make foreign investments (esp Canadian banks).
Also, how many more Oil companies and how many more banks will we attract and how much more of their investment because of these tax cuts - de minimus
So, the tax cuts may stimulate some countries economy but as far as Canada is concerned it is '10 cents on the dollar'
If this $6 billion a year is invested in things like health care, education, child care, we get 100 cents on the dollar remaining in Canada - an order of magnitude larger than the Corp tax reduction.
The Basic Equation is:
The more money that remains in Canada = the more is spent in Canada = the more Canadian wages it supports = the more jobs
It's just that simple
comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
11 April, 2011
- The kicker is that Harper then transferred the G20 to downtown Toronto so Tony Clement's riding would not get trashed
Submitted: 10:22am, PDT, 11 Apr.'11 CBC
Auditor's draft report alleges Tories misspent G8 funds, The Canadian Press, CBC News, Apr 11, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/11/cv-election-ag-report.html#
and
Posted: 2:04 PM on April 11, 2011
Tories misled Parliament on G8 spending: Auditor-General, JOAN BRYDEN, Ottawa— The Canadian Press, G&M, Apr. 11, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-misled-parliament-on-g8-spending-auditor-general/article1979865/
The kicker is that Harper then transferred the G20 to downtown Toronto so Tony Clement's riding would not get trashed as we saw happen in 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."
Harper has said that the protests and the ensuing police crackdown explain why the security bill at these summits reached more than $1 billion.'
(Toronto cleaning up from G20 vandalism, 28 Jun.'10, CTV News
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100628/g20-protests-monday-100628/)
(see: cicblog.com/comments.html, 28 Jun.'10)
So, Mr. Harper if you knew there would be this kind of trouble why did you place it in the Toronto core
I posted to cicblog.com/comments.html 21 Nov.'10:
$50 million 'legacy infrastructure fund' to the Muskoka Region (including Tony Clement's riding) and the Con-Nada Fund to Toronto.
. . .
Conservative MP Ed Holder (London West) called the fund “a gift to the region, a chance for all Canadians to say ‘thank you’.
Yet officials were unable to explain why Toronto — which saw its downtown core virtually shut down for the G20 summit — wasn’t compensated as well."
It's not rocket science.
It's Harperavelli logic:
Toronto needs to be made an example of;
and,
Clement needs all the favors he can get.
Toronto didn't vote for Harper and his Con's.
Clement is a focal-point of die-hard, right-wing extremism in Ontario which makes him important to Harper efforts to maintain power. He lost the first time running Federally (in '04) and the second time won by only 28 votes. Clement carries serious baggage from his days with Mike Harris and has done some very unpopular things carrying out Harper orders, including undemocratically abolishing the Long Form Census, and his support early this year of the undemocratic Harper prorogation:
"Clement claimed that only the “elites” and “chattering classes” care about prorogation" (Wikipedia)
It certainly is not outside the realm of likely that announcing the G20 in Clement's ridging at first was to give the excuse to spend the $50 million, Harper, Clement and the Con's knowing they would be switching it to Toronto after the money is used up.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Auditor's draft report alleges Tories misspent G8 funds, The Canadian Press, CBC News, Apr 11, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/11/cv-election-ag-report.html#
and
Posted: 2:04 PM on April 11, 2011
Tories misled Parliament on G8 spending: Auditor-General, JOAN BRYDEN, Ottawa— The Canadian Press, G&M, Apr. 11, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-misled-parliament-on-g8-spending-auditor-general/article1979865/
The kicker is that Harper then transferred the G20 to downtown Toronto so Tony Clement's riding would not get trashed as we saw happen in 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."
Harper has said that the protests and the ensuing police crackdown explain why the security bill at these summits reached more than $1 billion.'
(Toronto cleaning up from G20 vandalism, 28 Jun.'10, CTV News
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100628/g20-protests-monday-100628/)
(see: cicblog.com/comments.html, 28 Jun.'10)
So, Mr. Harper if you knew there would be this kind of trouble why did you place it in the Toronto core
I posted to cicblog.com/comments.html 21 Nov.'10:
$50 million 'legacy infrastructure fund' to the Muskoka Region (including Tony Clement's riding) and the Con-Nada Fund to Toronto.
. . .
Conservative MP Ed Holder (London West) called the fund “a gift to the region, a chance for all Canadians to say ‘thank you’.
Yet officials were unable to explain why Toronto — which saw its downtown core virtually shut down for the G20 summit — wasn’t compensated as well."
It's not rocket science.
It's Harperavelli logic:
Toronto needs to be made an example of;
and,
Clement needs all the favors he can get.
Toronto didn't vote for Harper and his Con's.
Clement is a focal-point of die-hard, right-wing extremism in Ontario which makes him important to Harper efforts to maintain power. He lost the first time running Federally (in '04) and the second time won by only 28 votes. Clement carries serious baggage from his days with Mike Harris and has done some very unpopular things carrying out Harper orders, including undemocratically abolishing the Long Form Census, and his support early this year of the undemocratic Harper prorogation:
"Clement claimed that only the “elites” and “chattering classes” care about prorogation" (Wikipedia)
It certainly is not outside the realm of likely that announcing the G20 in Clement's ridging at first was to give the excuse to spend the $50 million, Harper, Clement and the Con's knowing they would be switching it to Toronto after the money is used up.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- We must hold Harper's feet to the Fire of Truth, Expose His Actions to the Light of Democracy
Submitted: 9:47am, PDFT, 11 Apr.'11 CBC
Auditor's draft report alleges Tories misspent G8 funds, The Canadian Press, CBC News, Apr 11, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/11/cv-election-ag-report.html#
and
Posted: 2:01 PM on April 11, 2011
Tories misled Parliament on G8 spending: Auditor-General, JOAN BRYDEN, Ottawa— The Canadian Press, G&M, Apr. 11, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-misled-parliament-on-g8-spending-auditor-general/article1979865/
"The auditor general says the Harper government allegedly misinformed Parliament to win approval for a $50-million G8 fund that lavished money on dubious projects in a Conservative riding.
And she suggests in a draft report the process may have been illegal"
Apparently, Harper spent this money like a drunken sailor, without any consideration to the needs of the summit and perhaps outside the law (compare Ignatieff, 11 Apr.)
Although allegations of this nature about Harper and the Con's comes as no surprise
Ignatieff is right (morally that is),
Harper must release the final report especially if he is saying it is substantially different from the earlier version which was leaked.
It is simply just not acceptable and would amount to yet another contempt by Harper and the Con's upon the voters of Canada
Although it may be that the Auditor general must present it to Parliament.
I would be very surprised if the Prime Minister especially in such an important and significant juncture in Canadian democracy were barred from releasing it.
At most, it may be out of respect for the office - but then since when did Harper show any respect for any Parliamentary Office when he wanted to do something. But even if it is against some rule I thought Harper made the rules, if and when he wants too.
But that is crux the whole point
It is not very likely that Harper would want the final report release during the election. The same as he did not want to release actual spending for his criminal and military policies before the election or what cuts he intends in order to get that $11b.
And for obvious reasons, if all Canadians really knew what Harper and the Con's were really about, his chances of re-election would pretty much be nil.
excerpt: comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Auditor's draft report alleges Tories misspent G8 funds, The Canadian Press, CBC News, Apr 11, 2011
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/11/cv-election-ag-report.html#
and
Posted: 2:01 PM on April 11, 2011
Tories misled Parliament on G8 spending: Auditor-General, JOAN BRYDEN, Ottawa— The Canadian Press, G&M, Apr. 11, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-misled-parliament-on-g8-spending-auditor-general/article1979865/
"The auditor general says the Harper government allegedly misinformed Parliament to win approval for a $50-million G8 fund that lavished money on dubious projects in a Conservative riding.
And she suggests in a draft report the process may have been illegal"
Apparently, Harper spent this money like a drunken sailor, without any consideration to the needs of the summit and perhaps outside the law (compare Ignatieff, 11 Apr.)
Although allegations of this nature about Harper and the Con's comes as no surprise
Ignatieff is right (morally that is),
Harper must release the final report especially if he is saying it is substantially different from the earlier version which was leaked.
It is simply just not acceptable and would amount to yet another contempt by Harper and the Con's upon the voters of Canada
Although it may be that the Auditor general must present it to Parliament.
I would be very surprised if the Prime Minister especially in such an important and significant juncture in Canadian democracy were barred from releasing it.
At most, it may be out of respect for the office - but then since when did Harper show any respect for any Parliamentary Office when he wanted to do something. But even if it is against some rule I thought Harper made the rules, if and when he wants too.
But that is crux the whole point
It is not very likely that Harper would want the final report release during the election. The same as he did not want to release actual spending for his criminal and military policies before the election or what cuts he intends in order to get that $11b.
And for obvious reasons, if all Canadians really knew what Harper and the Con's were really about, his chances of re-election would pretty much be nil.
excerpt: comments Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)