Posted: 7:50am, PST, 30 Nov.'10,
http://www.nikonthenumbers.com/topics/show/172#comment_44414
Federal Tories continue to lead, Harper advantage as best PM erodes (Nanos Poll Completed November 5th 2010)
There is an issue as to the extent to which these results are biased by the current polarization in Canadian politics.
In other words people answering in favour of Harper and the Con's not because they think Harper is, in actuality, the most trustworthy, competent, best vision, leader, but because they are die-hard supporters of the Con.
This bias is exacerbated by looking only at decided voters, since die-hards are more likely to be decided, almost be definition.
This phenomenon is not observed with support for Ignatieff and may even be the other way around - to choose Ignatieff they have to have a very strong opinion he is trustworthy, competent, best vision.
If you get a handle of this die-hard Harper support, then you may be able to adjust for it. Whether they have a second preference and who that is one thing to look at. Unfortunately Nanos hasn't released the numbers here.
I suggest that 37% of decided voters (or 29.7% overall) is getting to the core of die-hards for Harper and the Con. You can confirm this for yourself.
In that case, 24.1% for Harper's trustworthiness (17.35 overall including undecided) is actually a very bad indication since it represents a significant number (29.7 - 17.35 = 12.3 points overall compare to 24 points; or 1/3 of the die-hards) that indicate they would vote for Harper but do not have a high opinion of his trustworthiness. As suggested above, these may very well all be die-hards. It also supports that those indicating they would vote for Harper are doing so because they are die-hards and not because they think Harper is good for the country. This is supported by there being a much increase undecided.
You do your own math for the rest
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
30 November, 2010
28 November, 2010
- Answer Me This, Do We Pollute, and, If So, What Are The Odds It has an Impact, and, if So, Ought We Do Something About It, Now
Posted: 11:46 AM on November 28, 2010
Margaret Wente, Can environmentalism be saved from itself? Globe and Mail, 27 Nov.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/can-environmentalism-be-saved-from-itself/article1815408/
The climate change lobby put their claims in absolute terms and putting things in absolute terms will always be exposed to attacks such as what we see here.
On the otherhand, these attacks are in themselves futile since they do not address the real issue but only the manner in which it has been phrased.
The fact is that not only ought it not be put in absolute terms
but
It ought to be put in risk management terms:
If there is more than a mere possibility that our action now will cause serious environmental, economic, social harm to our children and our children's children in the future, whether 20 years - 30 years or 50 years. Then, we must act, and act decisively and to the extent required, now.
It would be a breakdown in rationality to suggest that human endeavours do not pollute.
It is also a serious flaw in the application of intellectualism to suggest that this pollution does not have an impact.
Perhaps it is nothing we can establish with absolute certainty today.
The problem is amplified by the fact that the results of our actions do not manifest in disaster now but in the future and it will be our children and our children's children that will be required to pay the price
This lack of ability to establish with absolute certainty goes both ways, we also are unable to establish with absolute certainty that it does not, something this article fails to consider - itself an intellectual breakdown.
(i.e., if this is because we are unable at this point in our development of science and technology to establish such with certainty, we are also unable to establish with certainty that out activities do not have such impact)
And this is exactly the type of situation risk management deals with.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Margaret Wente, Can environmentalism be saved from itself? Globe and Mail, 27 Nov.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/can-environmentalism-be-saved-from-itself/article1815408/
The climate change lobby put their claims in absolute terms and putting things in absolute terms will always be exposed to attacks such as what we see here.
On the otherhand, these attacks are in themselves futile since they do not address the real issue but only the manner in which it has been phrased.
The fact is that not only ought it not be put in absolute terms
but
It ought to be put in risk management terms:
If there is more than a mere possibility that our action now will cause serious environmental, economic, social harm to our children and our children's children in the future, whether 20 years - 30 years or 50 years. Then, we must act, and act decisively and to the extent required, now.
It would be a breakdown in rationality to suggest that human endeavours do not pollute.
It is also a serious flaw in the application of intellectualism to suggest that this pollution does not have an impact.
Perhaps it is nothing we can establish with absolute certainty today.
The problem is amplified by the fact that the results of our actions do not manifest in disaster now but in the future and it will be our children and our children's children that will be required to pay the price
This lack of ability to establish with absolute certainty goes both ways, we also are unable to establish with absolute certainty that it does not, something this article fails to consider - itself an intellectual breakdown.
(i.e., if this is because we are unable at this point in our development of science and technology to establish such with certainty, we are also unable to establish with certainty that out activities do not have such impact)
And this is exactly the type of situation risk management deals with.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper, Fantino - Birds of a Feather
Posted: 10:57 AM on November 28, 2010
Fantino wasn’t ‘there for the little guy’ in Caledonia, Christie Blatchford, Globe and Mail (Includes correction), Nov. 26, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/christie-blatchford/fantino-wasnt-there-for-the-little-guy-in-caledonia/article1815864/
"But the point is, for a man [Fantino] hailed as the Conservatives’ hot new law-and-order fellow, there are some real questions about his credentials, at least as they showed themselves in Caledonia where the rule of law was shattered, and a rather terrifying indication of his willingness to turn the full beam of his attention and power upon individuals whose only sin is to disagree with him."
Boy, talk about Birds-of-a-Feather.
If ever a description of someone fit Right, on the extreme Right, in with Harper and the Con's.
A while ago, I was referring to the die-hard core of right wing extremists epi-centred in Alberta. Someone's criticism was that there was an epi-centre in Ontario as well.
To which I responded:
"I haven't observed it, but if there is all I can say is God save Canada."
PS. can anyone explain to me why anyone would take their political instruction from Don Cherry. And, why is he stepping into this anyway, what's the connection. I don't recall him ever getting political before. What's the deal here.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Fantino wasn’t ‘there for the little guy’ in Caledonia, Christie Blatchford, Globe and Mail (Includes correction), Nov. 26, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/christie-blatchford/fantino-wasnt-there-for-the-little-guy-in-caledonia/article1815864/
"But the point is, for a man [Fantino] hailed as the Conservatives’ hot new law-and-order fellow, there are some real questions about his credentials, at least as they showed themselves in Caledonia where the rule of law was shattered, and a rather terrifying indication of his willingness to turn the full beam of his attention and power upon individuals whose only sin is to disagree with him."
Boy, talk about Birds-of-a-Feather.
If ever a description of someone fit Right, on the extreme Right, in with Harper and the Con's.
A while ago, I was referring to the die-hard core of right wing extremists epi-centred in Alberta. Someone's criticism was that there was an epi-centre in Ontario as well.
To which I responded:
"I haven't observed it, but if there is all I can say is God save Canada."
PS. can anyone explain to me why anyone would take their political instruction from Don Cherry. And, why is he stepping into this anyway, what's the connection. I don't recall him ever getting political before. What's the deal here.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
27 November, 2010
- Mr. Harper, Let not our legacy be a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm
Cooling climate change: Environmental inaction seems to be taking hold, Axel Schmidt,
Nov. 27, 2010
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/Cooling+climate+change/3892945/story.html
"The trouble, says Ross Mc-Kitrick, the University of Guelph economist who helped expose significant data errors in some of the IPCC's main climate models, is that with their dominating insistence that their science was "settled," that there could be no doubt about their claims, the climate change lobby put their work on a fragile pedestal: . . . "
I agree with Mc-Kitrick, the climate change lobby put their claims in absolute terms and thereby weekend their position.
The fact is that not only ought it not be put in absolute terms but it ought to be put in risk assessment terms:
If there is more than a mere possibility that our action now will cause serious environmental, economic, social harm to our children and our children's children in the future, whether 20 years - 30 years or 50 years. Then, we must act, and act decisively and to the extent required, now.
When all those countries that have not contributed to Global Warming or benefited from it but suffer the greatest devastating impact of it turn to Canada and see that we not only contributed to it, did nothing to stop it, but in actuality have benefited, we will be lucky if all they do is sue us for trillions in law suits similar to the tobacco suits.
The problem is amplified by the fact that the results of our actions do not manifest disaster now but in the future and it will be our children and our children's children that will be required to pay the price.
Let not our legacy be a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
We can not morally or economically pollute with reckless abandon, simply to let someone else pay the price of the damage and clean-up.
Even now countries are putting the blame on the developed Western countries saying they have been polluting for many years and are the ones that have caused the present situation and so are refusing to take action. They seem, however, to fail to factor in that they are benefiting as much if not more by all the scientific, technological, medical advances that are the direct result of such pollution.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Nov. 27, 2010
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/Cooling+climate+change/3892945/story.html
"The trouble, says Ross Mc-Kitrick, the University of Guelph economist who helped expose significant data errors in some of the IPCC's main climate models, is that with their dominating insistence that their science was "settled," that there could be no doubt about their claims, the climate change lobby put their work on a fragile pedestal: . . . "
I agree with Mc-Kitrick, the climate change lobby put their claims in absolute terms and thereby weekend their position.
The fact is that not only ought it not be put in absolute terms but it ought to be put in risk assessment terms:
If there is more than a mere possibility that our action now will cause serious environmental, economic, social harm to our children and our children's children in the future, whether 20 years - 30 years or 50 years. Then, we must act, and act decisively and to the extent required, now.
When all those countries that have not contributed to Global Warming or benefited from it but suffer the greatest devastating impact of it turn to Canada and see that we not only contributed to it, did nothing to stop it, but in actuality have benefited, we will be lucky if all they do is sue us for trillions in law suits similar to the tobacco suits.
The problem is amplified by the fact that the results of our actions do not manifest disaster now but in the future and it will be our children and our children's children that will be required to pay the price.
Let not our legacy be a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
We can not morally or economically pollute with reckless abandon, simply to let someone else pay the price of the damage and clean-up.
Even now countries are putting the blame on the developed Western countries saying they have been polluting for many years and are the ones that have caused the present situation and so are refusing to take action. They seem, however, to fail to factor in that they are benefiting as much if not more by all the scientific, technological, medical advances that are the direct result of such pollution.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
26 November, 2010
- The Big Question - Will I get Pulled, Yet Again, from the Taber Artcile
Posted: 7:50am, PST, 26 Nov.'10
Ekos:
http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2010/11/conservatives-pulling-away-from-moribund-liberals-november-25-2010/#comment-11137
and
Taber:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-pulls-away-as-fall-swoon-hits-ignatieff-in-poll/article1813044/comments/
(I think I have been pulled again, although it indicated 11:53am and I posted it 10:50am (approx), however, I can't find mine so again - go figure)
As I have been saying for quite some time now, these polls can not be properly interpreted without taking into account the die-hard support (manifesting in 33%) for Harper and the Cons.
This represents people who support Stephen Harper and the Conservative party in any kind of poll because of ideological reasons. It severely bias's the polls, of course, and with many it can account for all answers favouring Harper in a particular question polled.
I am glad to see that someone (Ekos) is starting to track this aspect - vis.: the "Ideology" heading - rock on Graves
Last time the Ekos poll had Harper and the Cons at 29.4%, at the time I suggested " But, until this downward trend is continued let's just chalk it up to Harper having a few bad Con days (a review of the media can help in this)". - see: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html - 18 November, 2010, "Will you, won’t you, will you, won’t you, will you let me join the dance today? (comp.: Lewis Carroll)"
Of course if my posting had not been pulled from Taber's article, again, people would have been able to read this.
As we can see Harper is back up to 33%.
It is inaccurate to classify this as the Con's "pulling away" from the Liberals.
I refer to this phenomenon as the 'die-hard right-wing extremist, epi-centre in Alberta' factor:
33% points of Harper and the Con's support in a poll can be attributed to the die-hard right-wing extremist*, epi-centre in Alberta factor.
For example, 38% feel Harper and the Con's are going in the right direction. Keeping in mind that 33 point are made up of people who feel Harper is in the 'Right' direction (i.e. they are supporting Harper because of his right wing ideology, as opposed to consideration of doing good for Canada).
That leaves only 5 points that are perhaps basing their answer on factors other than ideology. This number would have to be tracked for a while to get anything out of this since the margin of error is normally approx 3 points, in other words, the 5 points is statistically significant but barely.
That 28% would answer small 'c' is actually interesting - for one thing is it a coincidence that this is the same as the Con support two weeks ago. It would be very interesting to see what portion of this also gave Con as voter intent.
One might be tempted to say all, but then compare the Liberal numbers. The Liberal numbers can not be analyzed in the same fashion since the die-hard support is not manifest in the poll results.
*The Silent Minority:
Apparently some have an issue with my using 'extremist' - go figure.
They are extremist, both in their views and their acting upon their views, and I would be surprised if you asked them, they would not be proud of it and actually quite please with the results so far.
That Stephen Harper and the Cons have views based on right wing ideology that lies at the extreme of Canadian social and political views is manifest and very well documented. People who give die-hard, unquestioning support to Harper because of these ideological views, as opposed to whether Harper is good for Canada and all Canadians, can only, and Rightly, be described as 'extremist'.
On the other hand, being silent but working towards their goals in the background, underneath the radar, denying everything for the media, and hiding your true intent and purpose from the rest of the population is certainly a tried and tested political strategy.
It is used by extremists so that the majority are not awakened and, shocked by what they see, give the extremists (Harper) the boot.
Besides denying their roots, another of the methods, is, of course, keeping a tight muzzle on MP's. This creates a serious strain, since a hallmark of extremism, especially right wing who view it as a moral issue, is to be very vocal about their beliefs and how others have failed and how only they have the answers. With Harper and the Con's there are many examples.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Ekos:
http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2010/11/conservatives-pulling-away-from-moribund-liberals-november-25-2010/#comment-11137
and
Taber:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-pulls-away-as-fall-swoon-hits-ignatieff-in-poll/article1813044/comments/
(I think I have been pulled again, although it indicated 11:53am and I posted it 10:50am (approx), however, I can't find mine so again - go figure)
As I have been saying for quite some time now, these polls can not be properly interpreted without taking into account the die-hard support (manifesting in 33%) for Harper and the Cons.
This represents people who support Stephen Harper and the Conservative party in any kind of poll because of ideological reasons. It severely bias's the polls, of course, and with many it can account for all answers favouring Harper in a particular question polled.
I am glad to see that someone (Ekos) is starting to track this aspect - vis.: the "Ideology" heading - rock on Graves
Last time the Ekos poll had Harper and the Cons at 29.4%, at the time I suggested " But, until this downward trend is continued let's just chalk it up to Harper having a few bad Con days (a review of the media can help in this)". - see: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html - 18 November, 2010, "Will you, won’t you, will you, won’t you, will you let me join the dance today? (comp.: Lewis Carroll)"
Of course if my posting had not been pulled from Taber's article, again, people would have been able to read this.
As we can see Harper is back up to 33%.
It is inaccurate to classify this as the Con's "pulling away" from the Liberals.
I refer to this phenomenon as the 'die-hard right-wing extremist, epi-centre in Alberta' factor:
33% points of Harper and the Con's support in a poll can be attributed to the die-hard right-wing extremist*, epi-centre in Alberta factor.
For example, 38% feel Harper and the Con's are going in the right direction. Keeping in mind that 33 point are made up of people who feel Harper is in the 'Right' direction (i.e. they are supporting Harper because of his right wing ideology, as opposed to consideration of doing good for Canada).
That leaves only 5 points that are perhaps basing their answer on factors other than ideology. This number would have to be tracked for a while to get anything out of this since the margin of error is normally approx 3 points, in other words, the 5 points is statistically significant but barely.
That 28% would answer small 'c' is actually interesting - for one thing is it a coincidence that this is the same as the Con support two weeks ago. It would be very interesting to see what portion of this also gave Con as voter intent.
One might be tempted to say all, but then compare the Liberal numbers. The Liberal numbers can not be analyzed in the same fashion since the die-hard support is not manifest in the poll results.
*The Silent Minority:
Apparently some have an issue with my using 'extremist' - go figure.
They are extremist, both in their views and their acting upon their views, and I would be surprised if you asked them, they would not be proud of it and actually quite please with the results so far.
That Stephen Harper and the Cons have views based on right wing ideology that lies at the extreme of Canadian social and political views is manifest and very well documented. People who give die-hard, unquestioning support to Harper because of these ideological views, as opposed to whether Harper is good for Canada and all Canadians, can only, and Rightly, be described as 'extremist'.
On the other hand, being silent but working towards their goals in the background, underneath the radar, denying everything for the media, and hiding your true intent and purpose from the rest of the population is certainly a tried and tested political strategy.
It is used by extremists so that the majority are not awakened and, shocked by what they see, give the extremists (Harper) the boot.
Besides denying their roots, another of the methods, is, of course, keeping a tight muzzle on MP's. This creates a serious strain, since a hallmark of extremism, especially right wing who view it as a moral issue, is to be very vocal about their beliefs and how others have failed and how only they have the answers. With Harper and the Con's there are many examples.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
24 November, 2010
- Harper Muzzling Candidates - So It Is Right, So It Shall Be
Submitted: 7:50am, 24 Nov.'10
Fantino no-show at yet another live debate, Dan Robson, Toronto Star, Nov 23 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/895821--fantino-no-show-at-yet-another-live-debate?bn=1#article
Candidates Running Around Expressing Their Views Scares Harper, and Rightly So. You simply can't have a bunch of true Con's revealing to voters their true grit.
It is interesting that Harper and the Con's would choose a star candidate in the riding and then muzzle him during the campaign.
Just exactly what is it about the Con candidate that they are afraid people will see before the vote.
Perhaps the Con's are afraid that Fantino will voice an opinion,take a stance or in some other way show people what he is made of and what he stands for.
Every person in the riding ought to take note of this strategy, it's very revealing.
Muzzling Con candidates during general elections, and MP's after, is a standard Harper tactic and one that has been rigidly and for good reason.
Also, I don't recall hearing anything about Fantino that made me think he would make a good representative in Parliament - and memories is the only thing the voters will have to judge.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Fantino no-show at yet another live debate, Dan Robson, Toronto Star, Nov 23 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/895821--fantino-no-show-at-yet-another-live-debate?bn=1#article
Candidates Running Around Expressing Their Views Scares Harper, and Rightly So. You simply can't have a bunch of true Con's revealing to voters their true grit.
It is interesting that Harper and the Con's would choose a star candidate in the riding and then muzzle him during the campaign.
Just exactly what is it about the Con candidate that they are afraid people will see before the vote.
Perhaps the Con's are afraid that Fantino will voice an opinion,take a stance or in some other way show people what he is made of and what he stands for.
Every person in the riding ought to take note of this strategy, it's very revealing.
Muzzling Con candidates during general elections, and MP's after, is a standard Harper tactic and one that has been rigidly and for good reason.
Also, I don't recall hearing anything about Fantino that made me think he would make a good representative in Parliament - and memories is the only thing the voters will have to judge.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
23 November, 2010
- Polar Politics: Puzzle Me This Stephen Harper, 'When is an Extremist Not An Extremist'
Posted: 10:53 AM on November 23, 2010
The 1993 election changed everything,
Lawrence Martin, Globe and Mail, 23 Non.10
- Puzzle Me This: When is an Extremist Not An Extremist
Mr. Martin you are looking at the problem inside-out.
It is not the Parties, it's the people.
The Parties are mere manifestations of the people.
"The tumult of 1993 saw the simultaneous beanstalk ascendancies of the Reform Party in the West and the Bloc Québécois in the East. Quebec had always been a Liberal Party pillar. The arrival of the Bloc, which would take half or more of Quebec’s seats in the following campaigns, removed it. On the Prairies, the Liberals’ misfortune had begun long before. But they were still potentially competitive. Reform’s 1993 rise effectively sealed the door. Like Quebec, the West now had its own political formation."
"Quebec had always been a Liberal Party pillar." - if I recall it was Quebec's support of Brian Mulroney that put and kept him in power."
"Like Quebec, the West now had its own political formation." - this is an oversimplification, that hides the gravity, and polarization, of the situation.
What has happened since the 90's - and I would put in more towards a general trend in the mid '90's as opposed to a particular event in '93 and would likely attribute it, in large part, to the last recession and the growth of prosperity in the West - is a polarization, the precipitation of relatively small groups of extremist, die-hard conviction.
One is readily identified as extreme-right wing, epi-centred in Alberta (sorry, I meant, "While the Conservatives have a powerful and reliable support base on the Prairies"). Another, of course, is the core Block in Quebec. These people maintain their own position and promote their own agenda no matter what, irrespective of the overall good of Canada (that's why they're 'extremists'). The growth and prosperity of the Western Provinces has added fuel to the fire.
Approximately 33% (currently under review for adjustment downwards) of the vote can be attributed to this die-hard extremist effect in the West and 10% to the Block in Quebec. That makes over 40% of the vote. To this must be added the already existing 17% for the extremist left - NDP.
Given that it is the extremists that are motivated to vote and the middle of the roads not so much, they actually have a far bigger impact on elections, as we can see (in the last election the Con's got 36% of the vote).
It is not fair to pin this on the Liberal Party and it is unwise. The Liberal Party has remained the central, moderate party, the 'big tent', pragmatically looking for solutions that are in the best interest of all Canadians and all of Canada. This is in stark contrast to the polarized, extremist, ideologically based factions represented by the Con and the Block.
All Canadians must ask themselves if they want their country run, and shaped, by extremist politics. If not then they must, stand up, be counted and consolidate against extremism.
Harper and the Con's know this and take the approach that they can do pretty much what they want as long as they don't precipitate such consolidation.
In a democratically based, tolerant, open and free society Parties based on extremism may make good oppositions and may even make a contribution by pulling one way or the other - for example Canada's Health Care. However, if given the helm they no longer pull but take or even drag the country to the extreme, it is what they are. A middle of the road, pragmatically, non-ideologically based, 'big tent' Party is much better at the helm since they do not drag people one way or the other, they respond to the pulls thus stretching the tent in every which direction for the good of all and not a small but well-defined group with a special interest that lies at the extreme of society.
When is an Extremist Not An Extremist - easy, when they, themself, are an extremist.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
The 1993 election changed everything,
Lawrence Martin, Globe and Mail, 23 Non.10
- Puzzle Me This: When is an Extremist Not An Extremist
Mr. Martin you are looking at the problem inside-out.
It is not the Parties, it's the people.
The Parties are mere manifestations of the people.
"The tumult of 1993 saw the simultaneous beanstalk ascendancies of the Reform Party in the West and the Bloc Québécois in the East. Quebec had always been a Liberal Party pillar. The arrival of the Bloc, which would take half or more of Quebec’s seats in the following campaigns, removed it. On the Prairies, the Liberals’ misfortune had begun long before. But they were still potentially competitive. Reform’s 1993 rise effectively sealed the door. Like Quebec, the West now had its own political formation."
"Quebec had always been a Liberal Party pillar." - if I recall it was Quebec's support of Brian Mulroney that put and kept him in power."
"Like Quebec, the West now had its own political formation." - this is an oversimplification, that hides the gravity, and polarization, of the situation.
What has happened since the 90's - and I would put in more towards a general trend in the mid '90's as opposed to a particular event in '93 and would likely attribute it, in large part, to the last recession and the growth of prosperity in the West - is a polarization, the precipitation of relatively small groups of extremist, die-hard conviction.
One is readily identified as extreme-right wing, epi-centred in Alberta (sorry, I meant, "While the Conservatives have a powerful and reliable support base on the Prairies"). Another, of course, is the core Block in Quebec. These people maintain their own position and promote their own agenda no matter what, irrespective of the overall good of Canada (that's why they're 'extremists'). The growth and prosperity of the Western Provinces has added fuel to the fire.
Approximately 33% (currently under review for adjustment downwards) of the vote can be attributed to this die-hard extremist effect in the West and 10% to the Block in Quebec. That makes over 40% of the vote. To this must be added the already existing 17% for the extremist left - NDP.
Given that it is the extremists that are motivated to vote and the middle of the roads not so much, they actually have a far bigger impact on elections, as we can see (in the last election the Con's got 36% of the vote).
It is not fair to pin this on the Liberal Party and it is unwise. The Liberal Party has remained the central, moderate party, the 'big tent', pragmatically looking for solutions that are in the best interest of all Canadians and all of Canada. This is in stark contrast to the polarized, extremist, ideologically based factions represented by the Con and the Block.
All Canadians must ask themselves if they want their country run, and shaped, by extremist politics. If not then they must, stand up, be counted and consolidate against extremism.
Harper and the Con's know this and take the approach that they can do pretty much what they want as long as they don't precipitate such consolidation.
In a democratically based, tolerant, open and free society Parties based on extremism may make good oppositions and may even make a contribution by pulling one way or the other - for example Canada's Health Care. However, if given the helm they no longer pull but take or even drag the country to the extreme, it is what they are. A middle of the road, pragmatically, non-ideologically based, 'big tent' Party is much better at the helm since they do not drag people one way or the other, they respond to the pulls thus stretching the tent in every which direction for the good of all and not a small but well-defined group with a special interest that lies at the extreme of society.
When is an Extremist Not An Extremist - easy, when they, themself, are an extremist.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
22 November, 2010
- Harper and the Con's - Therein Lies for Truth
Posted: 10:29 AM on November 22, 2010
Cost of long-gun registry a fraction of what Tories claim, report shows, Gloria Galloway, Globe and Mail, Nov. 22, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/cost-of-long-gun-registry-a-fraction-of-what-tories-claim-report-shows/article1807833/
“The government held out a variety of figures in the $70-million, $80-million, I heard $100-million range when, clearly, they had a report that said it was nothing like that,” said Mark Holland, the Liberal public safety critic.
“They buried this so we didn’t have it for the debate,” he said. “They were trying to get the House to vote with blindfolds on.”
So, what else is new.
With Harper and the Con's, who in Canada is really surprised in the least.
In fact the deception, obscuration, obfuscation, obstruction, hypocrisy are so bad with Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party that Canadians can not take Harper and his Con's at their words for anything.
The only thing we can be confident of is when Harper or any of the Con's assert something, we need look somewhere else for the truth.
The fundamental problem is:
Harper and the Con's are supported by a core of die-hard right wing, extremist supporters (33% - under review for downward adjustment) epi-centred in Alberta that provide the funds and support that keep him in power.
As long as the Harper policies, and his misleading Canadians, do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and continues to, mislead - 'Canadians be dam[redacted]d'.
Unless all Canadians are willing to stand up, be counted, and in unison say "I want my Canada back" Harper will continue to mislead and transform Canada into something Canadians just don't want.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Cost of long-gun registry a fraction of what Tories claim, report shows, Gloria Galloway, Globe and Mail, Nov. 22, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/cost-of-long-gun-registry-a-fraction-of-what-tories-claim-report-shows/article1807833/
“The government held out a variety of figures in the $70-million, $80-million, I heard $100-million range when, clearly, they had a report that said it was nothing like that,” said Mark Holland, the Liberal public safety critic.
“They buried this so we didn’t have it for the debate,” he said. “They were trying to get the House to vote with blindfolds on.”
So, what else is new.
With Harper and the Con's, who in Canada is really surprised in the least.
In fact the deception, obscuration, obfuscation, obstruction, hypocrisy are so bad with Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party that Canadians can not take Harper and his Con's at their words for anything.
The only thing we can be confident of is when Harper or any of the Con's assert something, we need look somewhere else for the truth.
The fundamental problem is:
Harper and the Con's are supported by a core of die-hard right wing, extremist supporters (33% - under review for downward adjustment) epi-centred in Alberta that provide the funds and support that keep him in power.
As long as the Harper policies, and his misleading Canadians, do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and continues to, mislead - 'Canadians be dam[redacted]d'.
Unless all Canadians are willing to stand up, be counted, and in unison say "I want my Canada back" Harper will continue to mislead and transform Canada into something Canadians just don't want.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
21 November, 2010
- $50 million for 'Clement Country'? It's not rocket science - It's Harperavelli logic
Posted 10:30am, PST, 21 Nov.'10, Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/892868--toronto-shut-out-of-g8-g20-spending-spree?bn=1
Toronto shut out of G8, G20 spending spree. Orrville, about 20 kilometres east of Parry Sound in Conservative MP Tony Clement's Parry-Sound Muskoka riding, got a $100,000 gazebo with $745,000 earmarked for it and nearby communities, in the run-up to the G8 Summit in Muskoka, Rob Ferguson, Toronto Star, Nov 19 2010
$50 million 'legacy infrastructure fund' to the Muskoka Region (including Tony Clement's riding) and the Con-Nada Fund to Toronto.
. . .
'This fund was very much set up as a legacy fund to compensate the region for the inconveniences associated with hosting this event,' said Bryce Conrad, of Infrastructure Canada.
'Having a large group of world leaders and their respective delegations presented a number of significant challenges to the local population.
'These include dealing with the increased security, the media and the sheer disruption of everyday life associated with this type of world class event.'
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
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/892868--toronto-shut-out-of-g8-g20-spending-spree?bn=1
Toronto shut out of G8, G20 spending spree. Orrville, about 20 kilometres east of Parry Sound in Conservative MP Tony Clement's Parry-Sound Muskoka riding, got a $100,000 gazebo with $745,000 earmarked for it and nearby communities, in the run-up to the G8 Summit in Muskoka, Rob Ferguson, Toronto Star, Nov 19 2010
$50 million 'legacy infrastructure fund' to the Muskoka Region (including Tony Clement's riding) and the Con-Nada Fund to Toronto.
. . .
'This fund was very much set up as a legacy fund to compensate the region for the inconveniences associated with hosting this event,' said Bryce Conrad, of Infrastructure Canada.
'Having a large group of world leaders and their respective delegations presented a number of significant challenges to the local population.
'These include dealing with the increased security, the media and the sheer disruption of everyday life associated with this type of world class event.'
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
- If You Believe Harper and the Con's - How'd You Like to Buy a Bridge.
Posted: 11:53 AM on November 21, 2010
From Harper, more hot air on Afghanistan, Norman Spector, Globe and Mail Update,
November 20, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/spector-vision/from-harper-more-hot-air-on-afghanistan/article1807368/
"Here’s my question: In light of Mr. Harper’s past statements – from the election campaign of 2008 right up to a couple of weeks ago – why would a single Canadian, whatever their political allegiance, believe a single word of this report, when NATO and the U.S. are already hedging on 2014 as the end date?"
Norman, that is a very good question and it does not apply simply to Canada's role in Afghanistan.
Stephen Harper and the Cons' credibility, and lack thereof, on pretty much everything he, and they, say is seriously questioned.
If anyone has any trouble with the extent of the Harper-Hypocrisy they need only refer to the Senate vote this week to "interfere with the democratic will of the elected House” by defeating Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act, and without shining their light on the issue - which is precisely their raison d'être, which had been duly passed by a majority our elected representatives in Parliament.
As Harper said before being election in '06:
“I hope that better judgment will prevail and the unelected Senate will play the role that historically it has played, which has been a useful technical role but will not try and interfere with the democratic will of the elected House.”
Another very recent example:
"OTTAWA—The federal government showered $50 million on the Muskoka region to compensate residents for the “inconveniences” of hosting world leaders while Toronto — which suffered security headaches, protests and property damage — was shut out of any cash. (Toronto Star, 19 Non.'10)
And when you look at the disruption and damage done to downtown Toronto, which Harper, Clement and the Con's clearly were aware would happen (after all that's why they say the over a billion on security was necessary) you don't need to ask why it was transferred from Clement's riding to downtown Toronto - Clement would be punished in the next election.
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.
The fundamental problem is:
Harper and the Con's are supported by a core of die-hard right wing, extremist supporters (33%) epi-centred in Alberta that provide the funds and support that keep him in power.
As long as the Harper policies, and his misleading Canadians, do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and continues to, mislead - 'Canadians be dam[redacted]d'.
Unless all Canadians are willing to stand up, be counted, and in unison say "I want my Canada back" Harper will continue to mislead and transform Canada into something Canadians just don't want.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
From Harper, more hot air on Afghanistan, Norman Spector, Globe and Mail Update,
November 20, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/spector-vision/from-harper-more-hot-air-on-afghanistan/article1807368/
"Here’s my question: In light of Mr. Harper’s past statements – from the election campaign of 2008 right up to a couple of weeks ago – why would a single Canadian, whatever their political allegiance, believe a single word of this report, when NATO and the U.S. are already hedging on 2014 as the end date?"
Norman, that is a very good question and it does not apply simply to Canada's role in Afghanistan.
Stephen Harper and the Cons' credibility, and lack thereof, on pretty much everything he, and they, say is seriously questioned.
If anyone has any trouble with the extent of the Harper-Hypocrisy they need only refer to the Senate vote this week to "interfere with the democratic will of the elected House” by defeating Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act, and without shining their light on the issue - which is precisely their raison d'être, which had been duly passed by a majority our elected representatives in Parliament.
As Harper said before being election in '06:
“I hope that better judgment will prevail and the unelected Senate will play the role that historically it has played, which has been a useful technical role but will not try and interfere with the democratic will of the elected House.”
Another very recent example:
"OTTAWA—The federal government showered $50 million on the Muskoka region to compensate residents for the “inconveniences” of hosting world leaders while Toronto — which suffered security headaches, protests and property damage — was shut out of any cash. (Toronto Star, 19 Non.'10)
And when you look at the disruption and damage done to downtown Toronto, which Harper, Clement and the Con's clearly were aware would happen (after all that's why they say the over a billion on security was necessary) you don't need to ask why it was transferred from Clement's riding to downtown Toronto - Clement would be punished in the next election.
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.
The fundamental problem is:
Harper and the Con's are supported by a core of die-hard right wing, extremist supporters (33%) epi-centred in Alberta that provide the funds and support that keep him in power.
As long as the Harper policies, and his misleading Canadians, do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and continues to, mislead - 'Canadians be dam[redacted]d'.
Unless all Canadians are willing to stand up, be counted, and in unison say "I want my Canada back" Harper will continue to mislead and transform Canada into something Canadians just don't want.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
20 November, 2010
- Harper and the Con's Dictato-Meter? - Rock On Atwood!
Posted: wlloydm 10:02 AM on November 20, 2010
Atwood launches assault on gov’t with razor-sharp wit
By Hanneke Brooymans, edmontonjournal.com November 20, 2010
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Atwood+launches+assault+with+razor+sharp/3858270/story.html
"Margaret Atwood thinks Canada needs to set up a dictat-o-meter. Similar to the famous clock that counted down the seconds to nuclear Armageddon, this clock would grade how close Canada creeps toward a dictatorship, said the famous Canadian author Friday"
. . .
While Atwood delivered her dictat-o-meter suggestion with humour, it was only after she warned: “The tools for repression and control are multiplying very quickly. Our government: What happened to ‘open and accountable?’ … What happened to democracy?”
'dictat-o-meter' (is it 'meter' or 'metre'), I wish I had thought of that. But then Margaret Atwood sees a lot of things to a depth of insight and understanding the rest of us simply don't.
Margaret, when you're right, you're right (morally that is).
It's time that the 66% of Canadians that do not want Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party ruining this great country of ours any longer to stand up and be counted.
If I recall, someone, whose initials are SH (Stephen Harper not Severely Hypocritical - I know, same thing), once said:
The media in Democracies should: "shine a light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable”.
I would recommend Margaret for the SH Award for Media Excellence in light shining.
If anyone has any trouble with the extent of the Harper-Hypocrisy they need only refer to the Senate vote this week to "interfere with the democratic will of the elected House” by defeating Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act, and without shining their light on the issue - which is precisely their raison d'être, which had been duly passed by a majority our elected representatives in Parliament.
As Harper said before being election in '06:
“I hope that better judgment will prevail and the unelected Senate will play the role that historically it has played, which has been a useful technical role but will not try and interfere with the democratic will of the elected House.”
(see: Tory senators kill climate bill passed by House,Gloria Galloway, Globe and Mail Update, November 17, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/unelected-tory-senators-kill-climate-bill-passed-by-house/article1802519/
We can only hope that " better judgment will prevail" and Harper and the Con's get the boot and sooner, rather than later.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Atwood launches assault on gov’t with razor-sharp wit
By Hanneke Brooymans, edmontonjournal.com November 20, 2010
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Atwood+launches+assault+with+razor+sharp/3858270/story.html
"Margaret Atwood thinks Canada needs to set up a dictat-o-meter. Similar to the famous clock that counted down the seconds to nuclear Armageddon, this clock would grade how close Canada creeps toward a dictatorship, said the famous Canadian author Friday"
. . .
While Atwood delivered her dictat-o-meter suggestion with humour, it was only after she warned: “The tools for repression and control are multiplying very quickly. Our government: What happened to ‘open and accountable?’ … What happened to democracy?”
'dictat-o-meter' (is it 'meter' or 'metre'), I wish I had thought of that. But then Margaret Atwood sees a lot of things to a depth of insight and understanding the rest of us simply don't.
Margaret, when you're right, you're right (morally that is).
It's time that the 66% of Canadians that do not want Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party ruining this great country of ours any longer to stand up and be counted.
If I recall, someone, whose initials are SH (Stephen Harper not Severely Hypocritical - I know, same thing), once said:
The media in Democracies should: "shine a light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable”.
I would recommend Margaret for the SH Award for Media Excellence in light shining.
If anyone has any trouble with the extent of the Harper-Hypocrisy they need only refer to the Senate vote this week to "interfere with the democratic will of the elected House” by defeating Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act, and without shining their light on the issue - which is precisely their raison d'être, which had been duly passed by a majority our elected representatives in Parliament.
As Harper said before being election in '06:
“I hope that better judgment will prevail and the unelected Senate will play the role that historically it has played, which has been a useful technical role but will not try and interfere with the democratic will of the elected House.”
(see: Tory senators kill climate bill passed by House,Gloria Galloway, Globe and Mail Update, November 17, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/unelected-tory-senators-kill-climate-bill-passed-by-house/article1802519/
We can only hope that " better judgment will prevail" and Harper and the Con's get the boot and sooner, rather than later.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
18 November, 2010
- Will you, won’t you, will you, won’t you, will you let me join the dance today? (comp.: Lewis Carroll)
Posted: 12:42 PM on November 18, 2010 I have observed that my Posts for Taber articles seem to get pull down after a hour or so - go figure - we'll see this time.
News Flash - My Post was pulled an hour or so after posting - Last time I asked why and got no answer - this time it is hardly worth the effort to ask.
Coalition fear-mongering falls on deaf ears, poll finds, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail Update, November 18, 2010,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/coalition-fear-mongering-falls-on-deaf-ears-poll-finds/article1803937/
Posted: 10:19 PST, 19 Nov.'10 Nanosonthenumbers
One in two Canadians think government change would have no impact on economic stability (Nanos Poll completed November 5th 2010)
http://www.nikonthenumbers.com/topics/show/173
When analysis polls such as this, the 'die-hard right-wing extremist, epi-centre in Alberta' factor must be taken into account - vis.:
33% points of Harper and the Con's support in a poll can be attributed to the die-hard right-wing extremist, epi-centre in Alberta factor.
If you compare the most recent Ekos poll on voter intention (11 Nov.) overall:
Con: 29.4
Lib: 28.6
NDP: 19.3
Green: 10.7
Block: 9.3
29.3% is the first time voter intention for the Con's has dropped below 33% in a long time (you can check for yourself) and is statistically significant. But, until this downward trend is continued let's just chalk it up to Harper having a few bad Con days (a review of the media can help in this).
The Ekos voter intention for the Con's in the Prairies (combining Alberta and Saskatewan-Manitoba) is: 43% (with a large margin of error approx 10%).
Compare this to the current Nanos Poll on 'Change would be risky':
Prairies (combining Alberta and Saskatewan-Manitoba): 41.1%
This is statistically equal to the Ekos voter intention of 43%
If there is 43.1% die-hard support for Harper and the Con's in the Prairies one would expect them (almost to a person - otherwise they would not be die-hards) to follow the messaging by Harper and the Con's on a non-Con government being risky to Canada's economy.
This in itself accounts for all the 'risky' support in this region.
In other words the Nanos poll is seriously biased due to the 'die-hard right-wing extremist, epi-centre in Alberta' factor.
If not,
then the die-hards would be represent a smaller group and so a significant number of people with die-hard voter intention Con do not think a coalition risky.
That is not a good thing for Harper and his 'coalition is risky' con.
I'll let you do your own math on the rest.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
News Flash - My Post was pulled an hour or so after posting - Last time I asked why and got no answer - this time it is hardly worth the effort to ask.
Coalition fear-mongering falls on deaf ears, poll finds, Jane Taber, Globe and Mail Update, November 18, 2010,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/coalition-fear-mongering-falls-on-deaf-ears-poll-finds/article1803937/
Posted: 10:19 PST, 19 Nov.'10 Nanosonthenumbers
One in two Canadians think government change would have no impact on economic stability (Nanos Poll completed November 5th 2010)
http://www.nikonthenumbers.com/topics/show/173
When analysis polls such as this, the 'die-hard right-wing extremist, epi-centre in Alberta' factor must be taken into account - vis.:
33% points of Harper and the Con's support in a poll can be attributed to the die-hard right-wing extremist, epi-centre in Alberta factor.
If you compare the most recent Ekos poll on voter intention (11 Nov.) overall:
Con: 29.4
Lib: 28.6
NDP: 19.3
Green: 10.7
Block: 9.3
29.3% is the first time voter intention for the Con's has dropped below 33% in a long time (you can check for yourself) and is statistically significant. But, until this downward trend is continued let's just chalk it up to Harper having a few bad Con days (a review of the media can help in this).
The Ekos voter intention for the Con's in the Prairies (combining Alberta and Saskatewan-Manitoba) is: 43% (with a large margin of error approx 10%).
Compare this to the current Nanos Poll on 'Change would be risky':
Prairies (combining Alberta and Saskatewan-Manitoba): 41.1%
This is statistically equal to the Ekos voter intention of 43%
If there is 43.1% die-hard support for Harper and the Con's in the Prairies one would expect them (almost to a person - otherwise they would not be die-hards) to follow the messaging by Harper and the Con's on a non-Con government being risky to Canada's economy.
This in itself accounts for all the 'risky' support in this region.
In other words the Nanos poll is seriously biased due to the 'die-hard right-wing extremist, epi-centre in Alberta' factor.
If not,
then the die-hards would be represent a smaller group and so a significant number of people with die-hard voter intention Con do not think a coalition risky.
That is not a good thing for Harper and his 'coalition is risky' con.
I'll let you do your own math on the rest.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
17 November, 2010
- MacKay: Afghanistan, "aircraft training"??? - No, not his beloved F-35's???
Posted: 11:03 AM on November 17, 2010 G&M
Afghanistan weighs heavy on Harper’s mind, Brian Topp, Globe and Mail Update, November 16, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/brian-topp/afghanistan-weighs-heavy-on-harpers-mind/article1801235/singlepage/#articlecontent
"Dealers in murder and madness must be fought and must be defeated – no doubt about that. But the effective tools to fight terrorist organizations and their state sponsors are diplomacy; economic and political pressure; integrated international police work; integrated international intelligence work; and (as a last resort) targeted and proportionate force."
Any continued participation in Afghanistan ought to be aimed at economic development.
The recent news that there is approx $1 trillion in minerals affords a real opportunity to help in rebuilding Afghanistan - vis.:
"The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe."
(NYT, 13 Jun.'10)
Given Canada's long history and expertise in mining certainly we can assist them in this regard. It may even supplant their current cash crop - poppies.
It would also tend to loosen the grip by the Taliban since they obtain a considerable amount of their funding from the poppy crops and it is easy for them to 'interact with' farmers. However, it is hard to see them exerting much direct influence in the mining industry and if they "beat their IED's into Caterpillars", that can't be a be bad thing, can it?
And to be pragmatic, and there's nothing wrong with a little reality sometimes - if Canada leaves Afghanistan other countries will step in and give assistance, in developing its resources.
The consensus appears to be that rather than ending in '14, Harper, in reality has a 'no-end-insight' to Canada's military involvement.
"They will be involved in . . . and possibly some aircraft training, Mr. MacKay said." (G&M 16 Nov.'10)
"aircraft training"??? - MacKay kinda slipped that one in. I wonder just exactly what he is plotting.
Mumm, any day now Soudas and MacKay are going to start using Afghanistan as an excuse for the $16 billion F-35 purchase.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Afghanistan weighs heavy on Harper’s mind, Brian Topp, Globe and Mail Update, November 16, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/brian-topp/afghanistan-weighs-heavy-on-harpers-mind/article1801235/singlepage/#articlecontent
"Dealers in murder and madness must be fought and must be defeated – no doubt about that. But the effective tools to fight terrorist organizations and their state sponsors are diplomacy; economic and political pressure; integrated international police work; integrated international intelligence work; and (as a last resort) targeted and proportionate force."
Any continued participation in Afghanistan ought to be aimed at economic development.
The recent news that there is approx $1 trillion in minerals affords a real opportunity to help in rebuilding Afghanistan - vis.:
"The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe."
(NYT, 13 Jun.'10)
Given Canada's long history and expertise in mining certainly we can assist them in this regard. It may even supplant their current cash crop - poppies.
It would also tend to loosen the grip by the Taliban since they obtain a considerable amount of their funding from the poppy crops and it is easy for them to 'interact with' farmers. However, it is hard to see them exerting much direct influence in the mining industry and if they "beat their IED's into Caterpillars", that can't be a be bad thing, can it?
And to be pragmatic, and there's nothing wrong with a little reality sometimes - if Canada leaves Afghanistan other countries will step in and give assistance, in developing its resources.
The consensus appears to be that rather than ending in '14, Harper, in reality has a 'no-end-insight' to Canada's military involvement.
"They will be involved in . . . and possibly some aircraft training, Mr. MacKay said." (G&M 16 Nov.'10)
"aircraft training"??? - MacKay kinda slipped that one in. I wonder just exactly what he is plotting.
Mumm, any day now Soudas and MacKay are going to start using Afghanistan as an excuse for the $16 billion F-35 purchase.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
16 November, 2010
- I just want to know if this Harper 'training mission' wouldn't include F-35's by any chance.
Posted: 10:57 AM on November 16, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mission-beyond-2011-will-send-950-soldiers-across-afghanistan/article1800204/
Mission beyond 2011 will send 950 soldiers across Afghanistan
Campbell Clark
Ottawa— From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Nov. 15, 2010 9:29PM EST
Last updated Tuesday, Nov. 16, 2010 8:17AM EST
I am not sure a vote will achieve much, given Harper's track record.
But open, transparent discussion and debate where Harper reveals to the people just exactly what he has in mind is vital. It is Canada that is fighting in Afghanistan, not the Conservative Party. It is Canadians that must bear arms,not Harper, MacKay or any of the other con's.
". . . none of the troops will be posted in mentoring operations that would require them to accompany Afghan army personnel on combat operations"
When Harper said in early January:
"we will not be undertaking any activities that require any kind of military presence, other than the odd guard guarding an embassy"(OttawaCitizen, 7 Jan.'10)
I strongly suspect Harper knew at that time he would be announcing, if he, Harper, has anything to do with it, that Canadians troops would be remaining.
He is saying now it is training inside the wire.
But, as we shall see, this 'wire', along with our credulousness, will be stretched until it simply disappears and our participation becomes indistinguishable from the type of role we have now - much to the satisfaction of the US and other NATO participants.
Certainly, everyone, in Canada, and elsewhere, looked at his track record, his hawkish approach to Afghanistan and his general right-wing extremist ideology combined with 4 years of misleading, obscuring, obstructing and obfuscation - in a word "Con'ing Canadians" - and concluded that when push came to shove, he would keep a significant military presence in Afghanistan, despite he was saying the opposite.
(So, if someone knows they are being mislead, can it be said they are, in actuality, being mislead.
This continued and extensive misleading, is, of course, a manifestation of the Flanagan Fundamental Principle of Con'ism as applied by Harper:
“It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible")
Any continued participation in Afghanistan ought to be aimed at economic development.
The recent news that there is approx $1 trillion in minerals affords a real opportunity to help in rebuilding Afghanistan - vis.:
"The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe."
(NYT, 13 Jun.'10)
Given Canada's long history and expertise in mining certainly we can assist them in this regard. It may even supplant their current cash crop - poppies.
It would also tend to loosen the grip by the Taliban since they obtain a considerable amount of their funding from the poppy crops and it is easy for them to 'interact with' farmers. However, it is hard to see them exerting much direct influence in the mining industry and if they "beat their IED's into Caterpillars", that can't be a be bad thing, can it.
Also, if Canada leaves Afghanistan other countries will step in and give assistance - in developing its resources.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mission-beyond-2011-will-send-950-soldiers-across-afghanistan/article1800204/
Mission beyond 2011 will send 950 soldiers across Afghanistan
Campbell Clark
Ottawa— From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Nov. 15, 2010 9:29PM EST
Last updated Tuesday, Nov. 16, 2010 8:17AM EST
I am not sure a vote will achieve much, given Harper's track record.
But open, transparent discussion and debate where Harper reveals to the people just exactly what he has in mind is vital. It is Canada that is fighting in Afghanistan, not the Conservative Party. It is Canadians that must bear arms,not Harper, MacKay or any of the other con's.
". . . none of the troops will be posted in mentoring operations that would require them to accompany Afghan army personnel on combat operations"
When Harper said in early January:
"we will not be undertaking any activities that require any kind of military presence, other than the odd guard guarding an embassy"(OttawaCitizen, 7 Jan.'10)
I strongly suspect Harper knew at that time he would be announcing, if he, Harper, has anything to do with it, that Canadians troops would be remaining.
He is saying now it is training inside the wire.
But, as we shall see, this 'wire', along with our credulousness, will be stretched until it simply disappears and our participation becomes indistinguishable from the type of role we have now - much to the satisfaction of the US and other NATO participants.
Certainly, everyone, in Canada, and elsewhere, looked at his track record, his hawkish approach to Afghanistan and his general right-wing extremist ideology combined with 4 years of misleading, obscuring, obstructing and obfuscation - in a word "Con'ing Canadians" - and concluded that when push came to shove, he would keep a significant military presence in Afghanistan, despite he was saying the opposite.
(So, if someone knows they are being mislead, can it be said they are, in actuality, being mislead.
This continued and extensive misleading, is, of course, a manifestation of the Flanagan Fundamental Principle of Con'ism as applied by Harper:
“It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible")
Any continued participation in Afghanistan ought to be aimed at economic development.
The recent news that there is approx $1 trillion in minerals affords a real opportunity to help in rebuilding Afghanistan - vis.:
"The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe."
(NYT, 13 Jun.'10)
Given Canada's long history and expertise in mining certainly we can assist them in this regard. It may even supplant their current cash crop - poppies.
It would also tend to loosen the grip by the Taliban since they obtain a considerable amount of their funding from the poppy crops and it is easy for them to 'interact with' farmers. However, it is hard to see them exerting much direct influence in the mining industry and if they "beat their IED's into Caterpillars", that can't be a be bad thing, can it.
Also, if Canada leaves Afghanistan other countries will step in and give assistance - in developing its resources.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
13 November, 2010
- Symbol of The Harper Regime - Bird Droppings???
Posted: 12:08 PM on November 13, 2010 Globae and Mail
Peter MacKay is no lame duck, Tim Powers, Globe and Mail, November 12, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/silver-powers/peter-mackay-is-no-lame-duck/article1796743/
Tim Powers:
On Peter MacKay, "I take him at his word".
I wonder if I David Orchard and the Progressive Conservatives feel the same way.
(Peter MacKay won the leadership of the PC Party as a result of a back-room deal with David Orchard. According to Wikipedia "it was eventually revealed that the infamous 'Orchard deal' promised . . . no merger or joint candidates with the Canadian Alliance, and a promise to redouble efforts to rebuild the national status of the Progressive Conservative Party', 31 May '03.)
"I have seen more than enough evidence to suggest he is doing fine work "
Perhaps you, amongst the 33% die-hard, right-wing-extremist Con supporters, do feel that way. Given your intimate and central Conservative connection, is it surprising that you are saying this. Apparently, your coming out in the media to bolster beleaguered Con Ministers is a well planned media strategy (compare: Jason Kenny article in the G&M, 12 Nov.'10).
But, what about:
the 2/3rds Canadians that are not die-hard, right-wing-extremist supporters of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.
and,
all those Canadians who feel:
- F-35's are not needed for Canada nor that we can afford the price.
- Canada's role on the International Arena is that of mediator, peacekeeper.
- Canada ought not to go down the path of militarization.
- MacKay abandoned them when he sold his soul to the extreme right to further his desire for power.
- a politicians' moral touchstone is that truth ought not to be based on whether it appears in Hansard, but rather whether it, in fact, occurred, and have the honour to say it.
". . . dropping excrement for the sake of it."
What is it with Con's and bird droppings - some kind of psychological 'transference'.
As far as viscous personal attacks on those that dare to stand up, be counted, and say something that the Con's don't like that rates about a 2/10. I hope this isn't indicative of what we can expect in the running up to the next election.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Peter MacKay is no lame duck, Tim Powers, Globe and Mail, November 12, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/silver-powers/peter-mackay-is-no-lame-duck/article1796743/
Tim Powers:
On Peter MacKay, "I take him at his word".
I wonder if I David Orchard and the Progressive Conservatives feel the same way.
(Peter MacKay won the leadership of the PC Party as a result of a back-room deal with David Orchard. According to Wikipedia "it was eventually revealed that the infamous 'Orchard deal' promised . . . no merger or joint candidates with the Canadian Alliance, and a promise to redouble efforts to rebuild the national status of the Progressive Conservative Party', 31 May '03.)
"I have seen more than enough evidence to suggest he is doing fine work "
Perhaps you, amongst the 33% die-hard, right-wing-extremist Con supporters, do feel that way. Given your intimate and central Conservative connection, is it surprising that you are saying this. Apparently, your coming out in the media to bolster beleaguered Con Ministers is a well planned media strategy (compare: Jason Kenny article in the G&M, 12 Nov.'10).
But, what about:
the 2/3rds Canadians that are not die-hard, right-wing-extremist supporters of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.
and,
all those Canadians who feel:
- F-35's are not needed for Canada nor that we can afford the price.
- Canada's role on the International Arena is that of mediator, peacekeeper.
- Canada ought not to go down the path of militarization.
- MacKay abandoned them when he sold his soul to the extreme right to further his desire for power.
- a politicians' moral touchstone is that truth ought not to be based on whether it appears in Hansard, but rather whether it, in fact, occurred, and have the honour to say it.
". . . dropping excrement for the sake of it."
What is it with Con's and bird droppings - some kind of psychological 'transference'.
As far as viscous personal attacks on those that dare to stand up, be counted, and say something that the Con's don't like that rates about a 2/10. I hope this isn't indicative of what we can expect in the running up to the next election.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
12 November, 2010
- Harper v. MacKay - Who's Making Book on This
Submitted: 7:53 & 7:57 PST, 12 Nov.'10 The Toronto Star
Hébert: MacKay the latest to quack in lame duck cabinet, Chantal Hébert. The Toronto Star, Nov 12 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/889340--hebert-mackay-the-latest-to-quack-in-lame-duck-cabinet#article
Peter MacKay being kept in the shadows; rumours of him 'jumping ship' by the next election
Sounds like there's a Power Struggle Afoot.
Given MacKay's normal very vociferous support for the military and the 65 F-35 purchases and given MacKay's part in the formation of the Conservative Party and thus Harper becoming PM, this is significant.
It is indicative of a behind the scenes power struggle between MacKay and Harper, of a nature and degree that any other Minister would be summarily discharged from Cabinet, if not Caucus.
The reversal by Stephen Harper on Canada's future roll in Afghanistan from no more than protecting the occasional diplomat to up to 1000 solders 'training' Afghan troops (with lingering undertones of this training being in 'active' combat - Harper is saying no, but then, he mislead us once on this file) is not likely to be there reason, except, perhaps that Harper doesn't want to go as far as MacKay on this.
It seems to me that the only thing that would cause such an internal power struggle is the procurement of the 65 F-35's, which MacKay has invested all his credibility, both with the military and with all Canadians.
In other words, Harper may be getting ready to announce that Canada is not going to proceed with the procurement and MacKay is saying that he will resign if Harper does. These rumours of secret discussions with private law firms may be MacKay way of reinforcing such a threat.
There is, of course, the Afghan Detainee Transfer document scandal which will, despite their greatest efforts, come to light some day - that could be a source of contention between the two.
Keep in mind that, although MacKay resigning may be good for Canada and all Canadians, it is not good for Harper retaining power.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog comments
Hébert: MacKay the latest to quack in lame duck cabinet, Chantal Hébert. The Toronto Star, Nov 12 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/889340--hebert-mackay-the-latest-to-quack-in-lame-duck-cabinet#article
Peter MacKay being kept in the shadows; rumours of him 'jumping ship' by the next election
Sounds like there's a Power Struggle Afoot.
Given MacKay's normal very vociferous support for the military and the 65 F-35 purchases and given MacKay's part in the formation of the Conservative Party and thus Harper becoming PM, this is significant.
It is indicative of a behind the scenes power struggle between MacKay and Harper, of a nature and degree that any other Minister would be summarily discharged from Cabinet, if not Caucus.
The reversal by Stephen Harper on Canada's future roll in Afghanistan from no more than protecting the occasional diplomat to up to 1000 solders 'training' Afghan troops (with lingering undertones of this training being in 'active' combat - Harper is saying no, but then, he mislead us once on this file) is not likely to be there reason, except, perhaps that Harper doesn't want to go as far as MacKay on this.
It seems to me that the only thing that would cause such an internal power struggle is the procurement of the 65 F-35's, which MacKay has invested all his credibility, both with the military and with all Canadians.
In other words, Harper may be getting ready to announce that Canada is not going to proceed with the procurement and MacKay is saying that he will resign if Harper does. These rumours of secret discussions with private law firms may be MacKay way of reinforcing such a threat.
There is, of course, the Afghan Detainee Transfer document scandal which will, despite their greatest efforts, come to light some day - that could be a source of contention between the two.
Keep in mind that, although MacKay resigning may be good for Canada and all Canadians, it is not good for Harper retaining power.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog comments
11 November, 2010
- Lest We Forget
- “If you had seen one day of war, you would pray to God that you would never see another.”
The Duke of Wellington
http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/pea-thepen.html
- "If we let people see that kind of thing, there would never again be any war.”
Pentagon official explaining why the U.S. military censored graphic footage from the Gulf War
http://www.famousfunnyquotes.net/2007/02/15/quotes-about-war/
- "People have not been horrified by war to a sufficient extent... War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today."
John F. Kennedy
- “I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower
http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/pea-thepen.html
- "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."
Sun Tzu
- "The basic problems facing the world today are not susceptible to a military solution."
John F. Kennedy
- "When I see photos and video of the First and Second World Wars all I can say is: 'Thank God, I grew up in a time of no wars'."
Lloyd MacIlquham
http://cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper Misleading Canadians - The Devil! You Say
Posted: 11:18 AM on November 11, 2010, The Globe and Mail
Norman Spector, Will Harper get away with misleading Canadians?, Norman Spector, Globe and Mail, November 11, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/spector-vision/will-harper-get-away-with-misleading-canadians/article1794650/comments/
Norman,
perhaps the phenomenon is explained as follows:
When Harper said:
"we will not be undertaking any activities that require any kind of military presence, other than the odd guard guarding an embassy"(1)
everyone, in Canada, and elsewhere, looked at his track record, his hawkish approach to Afghanistan and his general right-wing extremist ideology combined with 4 years of misleading, obscuring, obstructing and obfuscation - in a word "Con'ing Canadians" - and concluded that when push came to shove, he would keep a significant military presence in Afghanistan, despite he was saying the opposite.
So, if someone knows they are being mislead, can it be said they are, in actuality, being mislead.
This continued and extensive misleading, is, of course, a manifestation of the Flanagan Fundamental Principle of Con'ism as applied by Harper:
“It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible"
Your very illuminating question:
'Will Canadians let Harper get away with misleading them'
is of general applicability.
Your very illuminating question:
'Will Canadians let Harper get away with misleading them'
is of general applicability.
It is clear that there are many issues where Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have been misleading Canadians since they took office that the same question could be asked. There are too many to numerate here, but, Norman, I am sure everyone has there own list.
The fundamental problem is:
Harper and the Con's are supported by a core of die-hard right wing, extremist supporters (33%) epi-centred in Alberta that provide the funds and support that keep him in power.
As long as the Harper policies, and his misleading Canadians, do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and continues to, mislead - 'Canadians be dam[redacted]d'.
Unless all Canadians are willing to stand up, be counted, and in unison say "I want my Canada back" Harper will continue to mislead and transform Canada into something Canadians just don't want.
You are right (morally, we all know you are Right ideologically) that the media plays a very important roll in shining the light of truth on Harper and his Con's dark corners, and, a responsibility to afford Canadians the truth.
It seems, if I recall, a wise man once said . . . sorry, I meant Severely Harpercritical Con once said, regarding the media in Democracies, that they should: "shine a light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable”.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
as per Norman Spector:
(1)Afghanistan will be 'strictly civilian mission' after 2011, PM says
By David Akin, Canwest News Service January 7, 2010
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Afghanistan+will+strictly+civilian+mission+after+2011+says/2413812/story.html?id=2413812
(2) Canada to leave 'trainers' in Afghanistan: Harper
PM confirms three-year plan ahead of G20 meet
By Mark Kennedy, Postmedia News November 11, 2010
http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Canada+leave+trainers+Afghanistan+Harper/3810857/story.html
Norman Spector, Will Harper get away with misleading Canadians?, Norman Spector, Globe and Mail, November 11, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/spector-vision/will-harper-get-away-with-misleading-canadians/article1794650/comments/
Norman,
perhaps the phenomenon is explained as follows:
When Harper said:
"we will not be undertaking any activities that require any kind of military presence, other than the odd guard guarding an embassy"(1)
everyone, in Canada, and elsewhere, looked at his track record, his hawkish approach to Afghanistan and his general right-wing extremist ideology combined with 4 years of misleading, obscuring, obstructing and obfuscation - in a word "Con'ing Canadians" - and concluded that when push came to shove, he would keep a significant military presence in Afghanistan, despite he was saying the opposite.
So, if someone knows they are being mislead, can it be said they are, in actuality, being mislead.
This continued and extensive misleading, is, of course, a manifestation of the Flanagan Fundamental Principle of Con'ism as applied by Harper:
“It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible"
Your very illuminating question:
'Will Canadians let Harper get away with misleading them'
is of general applicability.
Your very illuminating question:
'Will Canadians let Harper get away with misleading them'
is of general applicability.
It is clear that there are many issues where Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have been misleading Canadians since they took office that the same question could be asked. There are too many to numerate here, but, Norman, I am sure everyone has there own list.
The fundamental problem is:
Harper and the Con's are supported by a core of die-hard right wing, extremist supporters (33%) epi-centred in Alberta that provide the funds and support that keep him in power.
As long as the Harper policies, and his misleading Canadians, do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and continues to, mislead - 'Canadians be dam[redacted]d'.
Unless all Canadians are willing to stand up, be counted, and in unison say "I want my Canada back" Harper will continue to mislead and transform Canada into something Canadians just don't want.
You are right (morally, we all know you are Right ideologically) that the media plays a very important roll in shining the light of truth on Harper and his Con's dark corners, and, a responsibility to afford Canadians the truth.
It seems, if I recall, a wise man once said . . . sorry, I meant Severely Harpercritical Con once said, regarding the media in Democracies, that they should: "shine a light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable”.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
as per Norman Spector:
(1)Afghanistan will be 'strictly civilian mission' after 2011, PM says
By David Akin, Canwest News Service January 7, 2010
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Afghanistan+will+strictly+civilian+mission+after+2011+says/2413812/story.html?id=2413812
(2) Canada to leave 'trainers' in Afghanistan: Harper
PM confirms three-year plan ahead of G20 meet
By Mark Kennedy, Postmedia News November 11, 2010
http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Canada+leave+trainers+Afghanistan+Harper/3810857/story.html
09 November, 2010
- Harper, MacKay, Here's a Progressive Concept: "They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore." - Isaiah 2:4 & Micah 4:3
Posted: 10:36 AM on November 9, 2010
U.S. military commanders would like Canadian trainers to continue in-field training, in which they accompany Afghan troops on combat missions, Canada ponders plan to keep nearly 1,000 troops in Afghanistan, Campbell Clark and Doug Saunders, Globe and Mail, Nov. 09, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-ponders-plan-to-keep-nearly-1000-troops-in-afghanistan/article1790900/
The MacKay 'training mission' wouldn't include F-35's by any chance.
I hope not, but Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and the Conservative Party seem to be throwing out anything to con Canadians into the 65 F-35's purchase.
I am surprised that Dimitri Soudas hasn't issued a statement about how Canada's use of F-35's in Afghanistan is vital to our national security - but wait, the day's not over.
"continue in-field training" is an obvious euphemism for 'active combat' and not likely to hoodwink Canadians.
Any continued participation in Afghanistan ought to be aimed at economic development.
The recent news that there is approx $1 trillion in minerals affords a real opportunity to help in rebuilding Afghanistan - vis.:
"The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe."
(NYT, 13 Jun.'10)
Given Canada's long history and expertise in mining certainly we can assist them in this regard. It may even supplant their current cash crop - poppies.
It would also tend to loosen the grip by the Taliban since they obtain a considerable amount of their funding from the poppy crops and it is easy for them to 'interact with' farmers. However, it is hard to see them exerting much direct influence in the mining industry and if they "beat their IED's into Caterpillars", that can't be a be bad thing, can it.
Also, if Canada leaves Afghanistan other countries will step in and give assistance - in developing its resources.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
U.S. military commanders would like Canadian trainers to continue in-field training, in which they accompany Afghan troops on combat missions, Canada ponders plan to keep nearly 1,000 troops in Afghanistan, Campbell Clark and Doug Saunders, Globe and Mail, Nov. 09, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-ponders-plan-to-keep-nearly-1000-troops-in-afghanistan/article1790900/
The MacKay 'training mission' wouldn't include F-35's by any chance.
I hope not, but Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and the Conservative Party seem to be throwing out anything to con Canadians into the 65 F-35's purchase.
I am surprised that Dimitri Soudas hasn't issued a statement about how Canada's use of F-35's in Afghanistan is vital to our national security - but wait, the day's not over.
"continue in-field training" is an obvious euphemism for 'active combat' and not likely to hoodwink Canadians.
Any continued participation in Afghanistan ought to be aimed at economic development.
The recent news that there is approx $1 trillion in minerals affords a real opportunity to help in rebuilding Afghanistan - vis.:
"The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe."
(NYT, 13 Jun.'10)
Given Canada's long history and expertise in mining certainly we can assist them in this regard. It may even supplant their current cash crop - poppies.
It would also tend to loosen the grip by the Taliban since they obtain a considerable amount of their funding from the poppy crops and it is easy for them to 'interact with' farmers. However, it is hard to see them exerting much direct influence in the mining industry and if they "beat their IED's into Caterpillars", that can't be a be bad thing, can it.
Also, if Canada leaves Afghanistan other countries will step in and give assistance - in developing its resources.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
08 November, 2010
- For Harper and the Con's, Dismantling Transfer Payments and Tearing Our Health Care System Asunder - Collateral Damage, Friendly Fire - I Think Not
Posted: 10:24 AM on November 8, 2010 Globe and Mail
Provinces brace for health-care transfer-payment showdown with Ottawa, Karen Howlett and André Picard, Globe and Mail, Nov. 08, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/healthcare/provinces-brace-for-health-care-transfer-payment-showdown-with-ottawa/article1789046/
The Healthcare transfer payments come to a head when the current agreement expires in a couple years, in '13 - '14.
At that time, do we, as Canadians, really want Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party 'representing our interests at the bargaining table' with Alberta and the other Provinces.
It is hard to think that the Health Care agreement expiring in '13 - '14, a short 2 years before Harper 's predicted balancing the budget - predicated on them remaining in power of course - is a mere coincidence.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer's recent report suggests that the troublesome part of the Harper projections is the transfer payments, and Health-Care payments, and appears to be of the opinion that there is no way to balance the budget as predicted by Harper without affecting these.
What does the Con ideology say about transfer payments and Healthcare payments (= privatization, for Harper and the Con's). What has it, and Harper, said in the primordial beginnings of the Reform Party and Harper's pre-leadership, and since then.
What do the Provinces, like Alberta, feel about this.
What might the die-hard core of right wing extremists, epi-centre in Alberta (responsible for 33% in support) that keep Harper in power, and the Con coffers bulging, and to which Harper and the Con's policies cater might like to see.
Elimination of Transfer Payments and Privatization of Health Care is not 'collateral damage' or even 'friendly-fire' in a Harper 'battle of the budget'.
It is quite the other way around.
The huge deficits and spending are collateral to the fundamental objective of Harper and the Con's of eliminating the transfer payments and privatization of health care, tearing Federalism asunder, abdicating to the Provinces and converting Canadians to Con'ism.
And you can betcha this motivation will feature prominently in any Harper or Con, 'negotiations' on Canadian Health Care.
What about the Vast Majority of Canadians, is that how we want to balance the books, by eliminating Healthcare and tearing Canada asunder.
Do we want Harper, from now till then, insidiously laying the ground work for such demolition. As Harper himself said "the strengths of a plan are advanced preparation and consistent execution" (Vancouver Sun, 10 Oct.'08)
Perhaps, we should ask them all.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Provinces brace for health-care transfer-payment showdown with Ottawa, Karen Howlett and André Picard, Globe and Mail, Nov. 08, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/healthcare/provinces-brace-for-health-care-transfer-payment-showdown-with-ottawa/article1789046/
The Healthcare transfer payments come to a head when the current agreement expires in a couple years, in '13 - '14.
At that time, do we, as Canadians, really want Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party 'representing our interests at the bargaining table' with Alberta and the other Provinces.
It is hard to think that the Health Care agreement expiring in '13 - '14, a short 2 years before Harper 's predicted balancing the budget - predicated on them remaining in power of course - is a mere coincidence.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer's recent report suggests that the troublesome part of the Harper projections is the transfer payments, and Health-Care payments, and appears to be of the opinion that there is no way to balance the budget as predicted by Harper without affecting these.
What does the Con ideology say about transfer payments and Healthcare payments (= privatization, for Harper and the Con's). What has it, and Harper, said in the primordial beginnings of the Reform Party and Harper's pre-leadership, and since then.
What do the Provinces, like Alberta, feel about this.
What might the die-hard core of right wing extremists, epi-centre in Alberta (responsible for 33% in support) that keep Harper in power, and the Con coffers bulging, and to which Harper and the Con's policies cater might like to see.
Elimination of Transfer Payments and Privatization of Health Care is not 'collateral damage' or even 'friendly-fire' in a Harper 'battle of the budget'.
It is quite the other way around.
The huge deficits and spending are collateral to the fundamental objective of Harper and the Con's of eliminating the transfer payments and privatization of health care, tearing Federalism asunder, abdicating to the Provinces and converting Canadians to Con'ism.
And you can betcha this motivation will feature prominently in any Harper or Con, 'negotiations' on Canadian Health Care.
What about the Vast Majority of Canadians, is that how we want to balance the books, by eliminating Healthcare and tearing Canada asunder.
Do we want Harper, from now till then, insidiously laying the ground work for such demolition. As Harper himself said "the strengths of a plan are advanced preparation and consistent execution" (Vancouver Sun, 10 Oct.'08)
Perhaps, we should ask them all.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
06 November, 2010
- MacKay, Hopefully we'll be saying "adieu to you too, Pete" sooner, rather than later
Posted: 10:40 AM on November 6, 2010 Globe and Mail
MacKay bids Prentice adieu – but won’t follow him out door, Steven Chase, Globe and Mail, Friday, November 5, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/mackay-bids-prentice-adieu-but-wont-follow-him-out-door/article1787339/
Peter MacKay a 'red tory'???
I'm not sure what 'red tory' means. But if 'red' refers to moderate, middle of the road, liberal values, MacKay is anything but 'red', as his right-wing, extremist, 'hawkish' stance on the purchase of the 65 F-35's at the cost of $16 billions, and counting, very clearly demonstrates.
MacKay has put our Canadian military's interests above the good of all Canadians. He has abdicated responsible government so as to "have associated myself with the military". The procurement of the F-35's is not moderate, it's a right-wing extremist position.
If 'Tory' refers to the old PC tradition in Canada then he is certainly not a 'tory'. After all it was MacKay that sold out the PC Party for Harper and his right-wing extremists.
(Peter MacKay won the leadership of the PC Party as a result of a back-room deal with David Orchard. According to Wikipedia "it was eventually revealed that the infamous 'Orchard deal' promised . . . no merger or joint candidates with the Canadian Alliance, and a promise to redouble efforts to rebuild the national status of the Progressive Conservative Party' (31 May '03)
On 15 Oct.'03 MacKay and the PC announce they will form a new party with the Alliance. Wikipedia)
Peter MacKay may have started out as a 'red tory' but he sold his soul to the devi . . . sorry, Harper, in pursuit of personal power.
If 'red tory' instils trust based on a long history nation building keep in mind that with Harper and the Con's their history is neither long and anything but nation building.
If you ask yourself is Peter MacKay a straight shooter, keep in mind: if it isn't in Hansard, did it happen (is this the 'honourable path' that is in the best military tradition).
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
MacKay bids Prentice adieu – but won’t follow him out door, Steven Chase, Globe and Mail, Friday, November 5, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/mackay-bids-prentice-adieu-but-wont-follow-him-out-door/article1787339/
Peter MacKay a 'red tory'???
I'm not sure what 'red tory' means. But if 'red' refers to moderate, middle of the road, liberal values, MacKay is anything but 'red', as his right-wing, extremist, 'hawkish' stance on the purchase of the 65 F-35's at the cost of $16 billions, and counting, very clearly demonstrates.
MacKay has put our Canadian military's interests above the good of all Canadians. He has abdicated responsible government so as to "have associated myself with the military". The procurement of the F-35's is not moderate, it's a right-wing extremist position.
If 'Tory' refers to the old PC tradition in Canada then he is certainly not a 'tory'. After all it was MacKay that sold out the PC Party for Harper and his right-wing extremists.
(Peter MacKay won the leadership of the PC Party as a result of a back-room deal with David Orchard. According to Wikipedia "it was eventually revealed that the infamous 'Orchard deal' promised . . . no merger or joint candidates with the Canadian Alliance, and a promise to redouble efforts to rebuild the national status of the Progressive Conservative Party' (31 May '03)
On 15 Oct.'03 MacKay and the PC announce they will form a new party with the Alliance. Wikipedia)
Peter MacKay may have started out as a 'red tory' but he sold his soul to the devi . . . sorry, Harper, in pursuit of personal power.
If 'red tory' instils trust based on a long history nation building keep in mind that with Harper and the Con's their history is neither long and anything but nation building.
If you ask yourself is Peter MacKay a straight shooter, keep in mind: if it isn't in Hansard, did it happen (is this the 'honourable path' that is in the best military tradition).
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
05 November, 2010
- Harper Carrying the Flag of Con'ism
Posted: 6:05pm, PDT, 5 Nov.'10
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/05/happiness-is-a-warm-f-35/
For the Tories, happiness is a warm F-35
Soudas's statements are right-wing extremist.
They are also displaying the position of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party, since, after all, Soudas is speaking for Harper and the Con's, make no mistake about that. To suggest Soudas would make such statements without authorization from Harper is ludicrous.
They are crafted for consumption by the core of right-wing extremists with epi-centre Alberta, who support Harper and the Con's pretty much no matter what, as long as Harper is seen to carry the flag. They are by no means a slip of the tongue, nor isolated, nor the first, nor the last.
'Out There' makes a good point when he/she suggests it is done to keep the anti-coalition fires burning. But it is much more.
Everyone in Canada should ask themselves if we want it determined by such right-wing, extremists as Harper, MacKay and the Conservative Party.
Unless the vast majority of Canadians are willing to stand up, be counted, and in unison say "I want my Canada back" Harper will continue his crusade to convert Canada to Con'ism.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/05/happiness-is-a-warm-f-35/
For the Tories, happiness is a warm F-35
Soudas's statements are right-wing extremist.
They are also displaying the position of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party, since, after all, Soudas is speaking for Harper and the Con's, make no mistake about that. To suggest Soudas would make such statements without authorization from Harper is ludicrous.
They are crafted for consumption by the core of right-wing extremists with epi-centre Alberta, who support Harper and the Con's pretty much no matter what, as long as Harper is seen to carry the flag. They are by no means a slip of the tongue, nor isolated, nor the first, nor the last.
'Out There' makes a good point when he/she suggests it is done to keep the anti-coalition fires burning. But it is much more.
Everyone in Canada should ask themselves if we want it determined by such right-wing, extremists as Harper, MacKay and the Conservative Party.
Unless the vast majority of Canadians are willing to stand up, be counted, and in unison say "I want my Canada back" Harper will continue his crusade to convert Canada to Con'ism.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper Being in Power Has Unleashing the Hounds of Con'ism
Submitted: 9:45, PDT, 5 Nov.'10 CBC News - not posted - go figure
Re-Submitted: 10:05, PDT, 5 Nov.'10 CBC News
Aviation companies decry F-35 purchase
Dassault, Boeing claim they were shut out of lucrative military contract, November 5, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/05/-new-fighter-purchase-complaints.html#socialcomments-submit
Yesterday both Lt. Gen. Andre Deschampes and Peter MacKay were confronted with the issue of the Statement of Requirements being released in the Spring ('10) but the decision to purchase the F-35's evidently made before then (Power & Politics, Evan Solomon, 4 Nov.'10).
This of course leads one to the logical inference that how could the other companies like Boeing have competed and as MacKay so delicately put it "lost".
Neither Lt. Gen. Andre Deschampes and Peter MacKay answered this question directly.
They both, in an obfuscascious sort of way and in a fashion that suggested to me they both had access to the same pre-written response ( oh no, not a MEP, . . . can the F-35 defend Canadians against the MEP, the biggest threat to Canada and our way of life passed down and entrusted to us by our forefathers, established through their blood, sweat and tears - then, it might be worth it) referred back to the long process started in the mid '90's when Canada joined the Strike Force to be allowed to participate in the development of the F-35.
One could only conclude that that was when Boeing and the others 'lost', 15 years ago.
Also,They didn't seem to point out that Canada's participation at that time was to allow it to share in the development contracts, which it did and to a large net benefit (thank you Jean), but was non-committal as to its purchase.
MacKay suggests the F-35 is necessary because of its stealth feature, its being undetectable. Perhaps in '95 that was true, but according to Boeing and Dassault, it apparently is not the case now.
He also suggests interoperability, although does not explain just exactly what he is referring to and why other makes of jets wouldn't possess these qualities (I am assuming they are all equipped with radios, if not perhaps a few walkie-talkies might be apropos, at least it would be cheaper than purchasing the 65 F-35's).
If it's that important we need to know.
Everyone can understand the logic behind the Statement of Requirements being based on the specifications for mission success. What is hard to understand is why we aren't being told just exactly what those 'missions' are and consulted on whether we, all Canadians and not some small segment of right-extremists, want this for Canada.
Canada's military raison d'être is to support our chosen way of life. Their 'missions' ought to be based on that. We are not hear to give the military Carte blanche, without question, so that they are defining our way of life.
This is very much a political matter and everyone in Canada should ask themselves if we want it determined by such right-wing, extremist, 'Hawks' as Harper, MacKay and the Conservative Party.
When assessing the weight to be given to Peter MacKay's statements, we must all keep in mind that for MacKay, if it isn't in Hansard it didn't happen, and if it wasn't for MacKay's 'word being his bond' Harper wouldn't be running our country.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Re-Submitted: 10:05, PDT, 5 Nov.'10 CBC News
Aviation companies decry F-35 purchase
Dassault, Boeing claim they were shut out of lucrative military contract, November 5, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/05/-new-fighter-purchase-complaints.html#socialcomments-submit
Yesterday both Lt. Gen. Andre Deschampes and Peter MacKay were confronted with the issue of the Statement of Requirements being released in the Spring ('10) but the decision to purchase the F-35's evidently made before then (Power & Politics, Evan Solomon, 4 Nov.'10).
This of course leads one to the logical inference that how could the other companies like Boeing have competed and as MacKay so delicately put it "lost".
Neither Lt. Gen. Andre Deschampes and Peter MacKay answered this question directly.
They both, in an obfuscascious sort of way and in a fashion that suggested to me they both had access to the same pre-written response ( oh no, not a MEP, . . . can the F-35 defend Canadians against the MEP, the biggest threat to Canada and our way of life passed down and entrusted to us by our forefathers, established through their blood, sweat and tears - then, it might be worth it) referred back to the long process started in the mid '90's when Canada joined the Strike Force to be allowed to participate in the development of the F-35.
One could only conclude that that was when Boeing and the others 'lost', 15 years ago.
Also,They didn't seem to point out that Canada's participation at that time was to allow it to share in the development contracts, which it did and to a large net benefit (thank you Jean), but was non-committal as to its purchase.
MacKay suggests the F-35 is necessary because of its stealth feature, its being undetectable. Perhaps in '95 that was true, but according to Boeing and Dassault, it apparently is not the case now.
He also suggests interoperability, although does not explain just exactly what he is referring to and why other makes of jets wouldn't possess these qualities (I am assuming they are all equipped with radios, if not perhaps a few walkie-talkies might be apropos, at least it would be cheaper than purchasing the 65 F-35's).
If it's that important we need to know.
Everyone can understand the logic behind the Statement of Requirements being based on the specifications for mission success. What is hard to understand is why we aren't being told just exactly what those 'missions' are and consulted on whether we, all Canadians and not some small segment of right-extremists, want this for Canada.
Canada's military raison d'être is to support our chosen way of life. Their 'missions' ought to be based on that. We are not hear to give the military Carte blanche, without question, so that they are defining our way of life.
This is very much a political matter and everyone in Canada should ask themselves if we want it determined by such right-wing, extremist, 'Hawks' as Harper, MacKay and the Conservative Party.
When assessing the weight to be given to Peter MacKay's statements, we must all keep in mind that for MacKay, if it isn't in Hansard it didn't happen, and if it wasn't for MacKay's 'word being his bond' Harper wouldn't be running our country.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
04 November, 2010
- Harper Debt for Canada's Conversion to Con'ism - $200 Billion and Counting
Posted: 12:23 PM on November 4, 2010 Globe and Mai
Tories won’t share cost-cutting plan, budget watchdog complains, Bill Curry, Globe and Mail, Nov. 03, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-wont-share-cost-cutting-plan-budget-watchdog-complains/article1784121/
"A spokesman for Mr. Flaherty, Chisholm Pothier, said the government stands by its projections. 'On savings, we’re confident we’re on track to meet the objectives we’ve laid out,' he said."
. . .
"Liberal finance critic Scott Brison said he trusts the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s projections over what the Finance Minister says. 'We've learned not to take Flaherty's numbers seriously,' he said." (IBID)
Don't trust Harper and the Con's???
You've got that right (morally, of course) Scott.
Who in Canada take what Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party say at 'farce value'.
Except, the die-hard, right-wing extremists (representing 33%) epi-centred in Alberta who support Harper and the Con's pretty much no matter what, provide Harper stay on ideological track. They support Harper not because what he says is right (morally) and in the best interests of all Canadians but because it's Right (ideologically) and in their, very narrow, best interests and the best interests of Con'isms.
“On savings, we’re confident we’re on track to meet the objectives we’ve laid out,” (IBID)
You can betcha it is no accident that Harper, Flaherty, Day and the Con's do not reveal the details on its planned operating budget freeze - if they did, we might learn what their 'objectives' really are.
Canada's debt increasing by $200 billion from 2007 - '08 to '15 - '16, is assuming Canada stays on its current course - you know, 'steady as she goes', without the opposition 'seizing the wheel'.
It represents a 50% increase in our debt, in 5 short years, with Harper and Flaherty at the helm.
Keep in mind that the revenues lost by the reduction in GST ($12b/yr) and the corporate tax reduction ($6b/yr) as well as the subsidies to the oil sands corp's ($1.4b) will make up approx half of this debt increase ($12+$6+$1.4=$19.4 X 5 yrs = $100b) and when you consider financing costs it's probably more like 2/3rds - thanks Steve, thanks Jim, thanks Stockwell.
It is not clear that this projected increase includes the $10's b's in increased prison facilities (oh, my mistake, it's the Provinces that must pay - that makes me feel a lot better) or the $16b and counting for the F-35's, etc..
So, it's the Con policies, not the stimulus spending, that will cause this catastrophic mushrooming of debt with Harper and the Con's at the helm.
And, this debt will have been incurred for no other reason than Harper and the Con's efforts to buy their way into power and maintain it so they may tear Canada asunder and drag us to the extreme right.
Our children and our children's children will be paying this 'Conversion to Con'ism' debt for generations.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Tories won’t share cost-cutting plan, budget watchdog complains, Bill Curry, Globe and Mail, Nov. 03, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-wont-share-cost-cutting-plan-budget-watchdog-complains/article1784121/
"A spokesman for Mr. Flaherty, Chisholm Pothier, said the government stands by its projections. 'On savings, we’re confident we’re on track to meet the objectives we’ve laid out,' he said."
. . .
"Liberal finance critic Scott Brison said he trusts the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s projections over what the Finance Minister says. 'We've learned not to take Flaherty's numbers seriously,' he said." (IBID)
Don't trust Harper and the Con's???
You've got that right (morally, of course) Scott.
Who in Canada take what Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party say at 'farce value'.
Except, the die-hard, right-wing extremists (representing 33%) epi-centred in Alberta who support Harper and the Con's pretty much no matter what, provide Harper stay on ideological track. They support Harper not because what he says is right (morally) and in the best interests of all Canadians but because it's Right (ideologically) and in their, very narrow, best interests and the best interests of Con'isms.
“On savings, we’re confident we’re on track to meet the objectives we’ve laid out,” (IBID)
You can betcha it is no accident that Harper, Flaherty, Day and the Con's do not reveal the details on its planned operating budget freeze - if they did, we might learn what their 'objectives' really are.
Canada's debt increasing by $200 billion from 2007 - '08 to '15 - '16, is assuming Canada stays on its current course - you know, 'steady as she goes', without the opposition 'seizing the wheel'.
It represents a 50% increase in our debt, in 5 short years, with Harper and Flaherty at the helm.
Keep in mind that the revenues lost by the reduction in GST ($12b/yr) and the corporate tax reduction ($6b/yr) as well as the subsidies to the oil sands corp's ($1.4b) will make up approx half of this debt increase ($12+$6+$1.4=$19.4 X 5 yrs = $100b) and when you consider financing costs it's probably more like 2/3rds - thanks Steve, thanks Jim, thanks Stockwell.
It is not clear that this projected increase includes the $10's b's in increased prison facilities (oh, my mistake, it's the Provinces that must pay - that makes me feel a lot better) or the $16b and counting for the F-35's, etc..
So, it's the Con policies, not the stimulus spending, that will cause this catastrophic mushrooming of debt with Harper and the Con's at the helm.
And, this debt will have been incurred for no other reason than Harper and the Con's efforts to buy their way into power and maintain it so they may tear Canada asunder and drag us to the extreme right.
Our children and our children's children will be paying this 'Conversion to Con'ism' debt for generations.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
03 November, 2010
- Harper: Tear Canada Asunder? Just Watch Me!
Posted: 12:51 PM on November 3, 2010
Tory deficit targets are too optimistic, budget officer says
Bill Curry, Globe and Mail, Nov. 02, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-deficit-targets-are-too-optimistic-budget-officer-says/article1783203/
Harper, Flaherty and the Con's prediction about eliminating the deficit in '14 - '15 (surplus next budget), could come true and Page's concerns over increases transfer payments alleviated by one simple move - get rid of the transfer payments, and privatize healthcare.
Also, if Page is saying that the deficit will not be eliminated by the '15 - '16 budget, but Harper and the Con's are confidently saying it will, but only if we keep them in power. Is it simply a co-incidence that this time-line for eliminating the deficit falls just after the expiry of the Healthcare agreement.
Now, I wonder if Harper and the Con's have ever contemplated this. What does their ideology say about transfer payments and private Healthcare. What has it, and Harper, said in the primordial beginnings of the Reform Party and Harper's pre-leadership.
What do the Provinces, like Alberta, feel about this.
What, pray tell, might the die-hard core of right wing extremists, epi-centre in Alberta (representing 33%) that keep Harper in power, and the Con coffers bulging, and to which Harper and the Con's policies cater (and the rest of Canadians be dam[redacted]ed) might like to see.
What about the Vast Majority of Canadians, is that how we want to balance the books, by eliminating Healthcare and tearing Canada asunder.
Perhaps, we should ask them all.
The Healthcare transfer payments come to a head when the current agreement expires in a couple years, in '13 - '14. At that time, do we, as Canadians, really want Harper and the Con's 'representing our interests at the bargaining table' with Alberta and the other Provinces. Do we want Harper, from now til then, insidiously laying the ground work for such demolition. As Harper himself said "the strengths of a plan are advanced preparation and consistent execution" (Vancouver Sun, 10 Oct.'08)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Tory deficit targets are too optimistic, budget officer says
Bill Curry, Globe and Mail, Nov. 02, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-deficit-targets-are-too-optimistic-budget-officer-says/article1783203/
Harper, Flaherty and the Con's prediction about eliminating the deficit in '14 - '15 (surplus next budget), could come true and Page's concerns over increases transfer payments alleviated by one simple move - get rid of the transfer payments, and privatize healthcare.
Also, if Page is saying that the deficit will not be eliminated by the '15 - '16 budget, but Harper and the Con's are confidently saying it will, but only if we keep them in power. Is it simply a co-incidence that this time-line for eliminating the deficit falls just after the expiry of the Healthcare agreement.
Now, I wonder if Harper and the Con's have ever contemplated this. What does their ideology say about transfer payments and private Healthcare. What has it, and Harper, said in the primordial beginnings of the Reform Party and Harper's pre-leadership.
What do the Provinces, like Alberta, feel about this.
What, pray tell, might the die-hard core of right wing extremists, epi-centre in Alberta (representing 33%) that keep Harper in power, and the Con coffers bulging, and to which Harper and the Con's policies cater (and the rest of Canadians be dam[redacted]ed) might like to see.
What about the Vast Majority of Canadians, is that how we want to balance the books, by eliminating Healthcare and tearing Canada asunder.
Perhaps, we should ask them all.
The Healthcare transfer payments come to a head when the current agreement expires in a couple years, in '13 - '14. At that time, do we, as Canadians, really want Harper and the Con's 'representing our interests at the bargaining table' with Alberta and the other Provinces. Do we want Harper, from now til then, insidiously laying the ground work for such demolition. As Harper himself said "the strengths of a plan are advanced preparation and consistent execution" (Vancouver Sun, 10 Oct.'08)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper's 'Steady as She Goes', Flaherty's 'We can see the harbour lights' - They're Boguing
Posted: 12:17 PM on November 3, 2010
Tory deficit targets are too optimistic, budget officer says
Bill Curry, Globe and Mail, Nov. 02, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-deficit-targets-are-too-optimistic-budget-officer-says/article1783203/
In whom should we trust, Kevin Page or Stephen Harper and the Conservative
Party?
Well, if it wasn't for the fact that Harper, Flaherty and the Con's:
- have been wrong and outright misrepresented the economy pretty much right from the start of their rule.
- denied the Recession up until the last part of the '08 election when they were forced to admit it, then had the unmitigated gall to say that their economic policies before then made the impact less, like reducing the GST by 2 points, taking $12 billion/year out of the Federal coffers.
- economic update a month or so later, was not founded in sound fiscal policy to aimed at protecting Canadians, their finances and their jobs, but consisting of an outrageous and opportunistic, vicious partizan attack on the Opposition Parties with no consideration for the economic wellbeing of Canadians.
- spending $16 b on 65 F-35's and $10's of b's on prisons, as well as other wild, insane spending.
- eliminating $6 b a year from the Federal coffers by reducing fiscal responsibilities of large and prosperous corporations, exactly at the wrong time
- only successful fiscal policies they can point to had been brought in by the Liberal gov't.
- prediction that the deficit will be eliminated by '15 - '16, being predicated on Harper and the Con's continuing to run the country, of course.
On the other hand, by releasing a report that through cold hard application of rationality exposes Harper and the Con claims for their true implications - partizan bogue - Page runs the risk of incurring the viscous, personal and professional attacks and reprisals for which Harper and the Con's have become quite acclaimed.
Weighing both sides, I put my trust in Kevin Page.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Tory deficit targets are too optimistic, budget officer says
Bill Curry, Globe and Mail, Nov. 02, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-deficit-targets-are-too-optimistic-budget-officer-says/article1783203/
In whom should we trust, Kevin Page or Stephen Harper and the Conservative
Party?
Well, if it wasn't for the fact that Harper, Flaherty and the Con's:
- have been wrong and outright misrepresented the economy pretty much right from the start of their rule.
- denied the Recession up until the last part of the '08 election when they were forced to admit it, then had the unmitigated gall to say that their economic policies before then made the impact less, like reducing the GST by 2 points, taking $12 billion/year out of the Federal coffers.
- economic update a month or so later, was not founded in sound fiscal policy to aimed at protecting Canadians, their finances and their jobs, but consisting of an outrageous and opportunistic, vicious partizan attack on the Opposition Parties with no consideration for the economic wellbeing of Canadians.
- spending $16 b on 65 F-35's and $10's of b's on prisons, as well as other wild, insane spending.
- eliminating $6 b a year from the Federal coffers by reducing fiscal responsibilities of large and prosperous corporations, exactly at the wrong time
- only successful fiscal policies they can point to had been brought in by the Liberal gov't.
- prediction that the deficit will be eliminated by '15 - '16, being predicated on Harper and the Con's continuing to run the country, of course.
On the other hand, by releasing a report that through cold hard application of rationality exposes Harper and the Con claims for their true implications - partizan bogue - Page runs the risk of incurring the viscous, personal and professional attacks and reprisals for which Harper and the Con's have become quite acclaimed.
Weighing both sides, I put my trust in Kevin Page.
excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
02 November, 2010
- Rock On, Iggie!
Submitted: 11:36, PDT CBC News
Canada's UN loss 'most embarrassing moment': Ignatieff, November 2, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/02/ignatieff-speech-foreign-relations.html#socialcomments-submit
Mr. Ignatieff, when you're right (morally, that is), you're right.
The loss is very embarrassing, if you're one on the 2/3rds of all Canadians that are not die-hard supporters of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.
These die-hards (manifested as 33% in all the polls) support Harper and the Cons pretty much no matter what, based solely on ideological reasons and the facts, rationality and the impact on Canada and all Canadians be dam[redacted]ed.
Harper and the Con's are right-wing extremists and so too these die-hards.
It would be folly to think that the leaders in the Int'l community don't see Harper and the Con's for what they are.
When Harper says "Our engagement internationally . . . promotion of our values" he is referring to the extremist, right-wing promotion of the extremist, right-wing policies of the Conservative Party and their core (33%) of die-hard supporters, i.e. Con'ism.
He is not referring to the "promotion of our values" of the vast majority of Canadians, who do so in the same moderate, conciliatory, balanced fashion that Canada has demonstrated on the International stage since the inception of the UN and for which it won the Security Counsel seat 6 time out of 6. The only real difference this time is Harper, his extremist, right-wing, policies and approach to Int'l affairs.
We could only have hoped that the Int'l Community was writing Harper off to a 'right wing extremism anomaly in Canada's history' - a brief distortion in the continuum of true Canadian values. They didn't and God help Canada if it isn't.
That Harper and the Con's would try to blame the loss on Ignatieff and the other countries that are normally on Canada's side changing their vote is also a big embarrassment. The whole purpose of a secret ballot is so the members can vote their conscience and not have to fear reprisals from Harper, and given the vicious manner in which he and the other Con's attack anyone that dares oppose them, can you really blame them.
Of course Harper has a real track record for not accepting responsibility for anything that goes wrong. Either it is a civil servant or the opposition. If all else fails, he claims the Liberals did it when they were in office. For the government of this great nation to do this is also an embarrassment, domestically, if not Internationally.
As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and does, embarrass us all with impunity.
Unless vast majority of Canadians are willing to stand up, be counted, and in unison say "I want my Canada back" Harper will continue to embarrass Canada and all Canadians.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Canada's UN loss 'most embarrassing moment': Ignatieff, November 2, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/02/ignatieff-speech-foreign-relations.html#socialcomments-submit
Mr. Ignatieff, when you're right (morally, that is), you're right.
The loss is very embarrassing, if you're one on the 2/3rds of all Canadians that are not die-hard supporters of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.
These die-hards (manifested as 33% in all the polls) support Harper and the Cons pretty much no matter what, based solely on ideological reasons and the facts, rationality and the impact on Canada and all Canadians be dam[redacted]ed.
Harper and the Con's are right-wing extremists and so too these die-hards.
It would be folly to think that the leaders in the Int'l community don't see Harper and the Con's for what they are.
When Harper says "Our engagement internationally . . . promotion of our values" he is referring to the extremist, right-wing promotion of the extremist, right-wing policies of the Conservative Party and their core (33%) of die-hard supporters, i.e. Con'ism.
He is not referring to the "promotion of our values" of the vast majority of Canadians, who do so in the same moderate, conciliatory, balanced fashion that Canada has demonstrated on the International stage since the inception of the UN and for which it won the Security Counsel seat 6 time out of 6. The only real difference this time is Harper, his extremist, right-wing, policies and approach to Int'l affairs.
We could only have hoped that the Int'l Community was writing Harper off to a 'right wing extremism anomaly in Canada's history' - a brief distortion in the continuum of true Canadian values. They didn't and God help Canada if it isn't.
That Harper and the Con's would try to blame the loss on Ignatieff and the other countries that are normally on Canada's side changing their vote is also a big embarrassment. The whole purpose of a secret ballot is so the members can vote their conscience and not have to fear reprisals from Harper, and given the vicious manner in which he and the other Con's attack anyone that dares oppose them, can you really blame them.
Of course Harper has a real track record for not accepting responsibility for anything that goes wrong. Either it is a civil servant or the opposition. If all else fails, he claims the Liberals did it when they were in office. For the government of this great nation to do this is also an embarrassment, domestically, if not Internationally.
As long as the Harper policies do not consolidate the opposition then Harper can, and does, embarrass us all with impunity.
Unless vast majority of Canadians are willing to stand up, be counted, and in unison say "I want my Canada back" Harper will continue to embarrass Canada and all Canadians.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)