Excerpt submitted to: Toronto Star, “Sham-Ocracy: Parliament's Fissures “, 27 June, 2009, James Traves,
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/656838
Our current political situation is the net manifestation of all the forces that are at play, as is the case in any era. It is the inevitable effect of the number, nature and strength of these forces. There is not be meaningful change until these forces are identified and modified, in some cases harnessed, in other cases roped in and curtailed. Past generations have taken on this task, sometimes requiring catastrophic change. Surely it is our tern.
It is clear that one big problem is ‘Party’ politics. It is because the MP’s vote along party lines that gives the leader of the governing party all the power. Our Parliamentary system is based on MP’s representing their constituents. Voting on Party lines runs contrary to this and we can see the effect. This is particularly counterproductive when there is a minority government. Our parliamentary system, in some ways, was set up to have 308 ‘parties’ and not simply 4 or 5. However, this ‘Party’ politics is more the effect than the cause. Also, voting along party lines is not, per se, an ‘evil’. It is when this is done to the exclusion of all else. In other words, the balance has been distorted. This distortion has become increasingly pronounced over my lifetime, paralleling the increase in power and influence of the ‘News’ media since Watergate. Perhaps this is no co-incidence, thus identifying one of this ‘forces’ that has changed and upset the balance.
Another big problem is, of course, Transparency, Access to Information and the underlying force of Freedom of Information generally. Clearly this is one of the forces that must be strengthened and with easily predictable results. As I have suggested on numerous occasions, Freedom of Information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights. Travers suggests that what Canada needs is a White Knight to champion the cause of Democracy. Certainly we need someone to fight, head-to-head and toe-to-toe the Black Knight, Steven Harper, but the change that is required will not likely come from ‘within’ the current political system. It is the true will of the people that must be expressed. Ironically, the ‘News’ media could play a very significant, and constructive role, if it so chose.
25 June, 2009
- ‘What If’ Harper and the Cons were to get a majority. All I can say is “then God Save Canada”
Excerpt submitted to:
Toronto Star, “Canadians are victims of a con game”, 26 June, 2009, James Travers
Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament, the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The effect, and to me the manifest purpose, is to concentrate power in the Executive, in other words, the Prime Minister.
Harper and the Cons have turned Parliament into not much more than a smoke screen, a diversion and, much to the assault on the integrity of all Canadians, their own focus group for their attack ads. The longer Harper is in power the more he will become entrenched.
Of course, Harper answers to the will of Parliament. So, we can turn to Parliament to protect us against dictatorial rule. And, then there is the Senate as well, with its sober second thought. Surely it will limit Harper and prevent him from implementing any right wing extremist ideologically based policies, especially those that lead to a de facto dictatorship. Harper himself told us that before he got elected. How could a dictator take over with Parliament and the Senate. Unless, of course, you dissolve Parliament when it goes to exercise its Will, call-to-arms a small but significant group of die-hard supporters, and abolish the Senate, or at least attack and hamstring it to the extent that it can’t protect itself, let alone Canada, all Canadians and our way of life. No Prime Minister would do such a thing. Would they?
Toronto Star, “Canadians are victims of a con game”, 26 June, 2009, James Travers
Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament, the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The effect, and to me the manifest purpose, is to concentrate power in the Executive, in other words, the Prime Minister.
Harper and the Cons have turned Parliament into not much more than a smoke screen, a diversion and, much to the assault on the integrity of all Canadians, their own focus group for their attack ads. The longer Harper is in power the more he will become entrenched.
Of course, Harper answers to the will of Parliament. So, we can turn to Parliament to protect us against dictatorial rule. And, then there is the Senate as well, with its sober second thought. Surely it will limit Harper and prevent him from implementing any right wing extremist ideologically based policies, especially those that lead to a de facto dictatorship. Harper himself told us that before he got elected. How could a dictator take over with Parliament and the Senate. Unless, of course, you dissolve Parliament when it goes to exercise its Will, call-to-arms a small but significant group of die-hard supporters, and abolish the Senate, or at least attack and hamstring it to the extent that it can’t protect itself, let alone Canada, all Canadians and our way of life. No Prime Minister would do such a thing. Would they?
22 June, 2009
- Tom, If it gets rid of Harper and the Cons then, even if it is another minority government, an election would be anything but ‘pointless’.
Posted to: Globe and Mail, Comments by Tom Flanagan, Monday, Jun. 22, 2009 09:57AM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/coming-to-terms-with-minority-government/article1190248/
The only people that could benefit by downplaying this very serious political crisis are those that are in power, Harper and the Cons. As long as they are in power an election is ‘pointless’. Perhaps, this is why people like Tom Flanagan are referring to it as “pointless election”.
If Harper and the Cons were the Official Opposition, you can be sure they he, and they, would be yelling and screaming and obstructing and attacking and demanding an election like there was no tomorrow. And yes, Harper and the Cons would even walking out in Parliament in protest.
Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament, the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The effect, and to me the manifest purpose, is to concentrate power in the Executive, in other words, the Prime Minister.
Harper and the Cons have turned Parliament into not much more than a smoke screen, a diversion and, much to the assault on the integrity of all Canadians, their own focus group for their attack ads. The longer Harper is in power the more he will become entrenched.
With power concentrated in the hands of the Executive i.e. the Prime Minster, what Parliamentary constellation appears in Canada’s political cosmos is more astrology than astronomy. Unless of course, some catastrophic event occurred like Harper and the Cons got a majority – in which case if God created the Universe, then God save us.
Who is Prime Minister and what Party is in power does make a difference, whether there is a minority or a majority. It makes a huge difference, given the current imbalance of power in favour of the Executive (Prime Minister and governing party) over Parliament, the Senate and the Judiciary. Our parliamentary system was developed over hundreds of years to create a balance to protect our way of life and our freedoms. It is this balance that is being vigorously attacked by Harper and the Cons – e.g. dissolution of Parliament last December and his call-to-arms of his loyal supporters with his deliberately misleading and erroneous allegations on the workings of our Parliamentary System and those upholding it.
Fortunately, we still have elections (at least every four years … I think … we’ll have to see what Harper has in mind when the time comes).
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/coming-to-terms-with-minority-government/article1190248/
The only people that could benefit by downplaying this very serious political crisis are those that are in power, Harper and the Cons. As long as they are in power an election is ‘pointless’. Perhaps, this is why people like Tom Flanagan are referring to it as “pointless election”.
If Harper and the Cons were the Official Opposition, you can be sure they he, and they, would be yelling and screaming and obstructing and attacking and demanding an election like there was no tomorrow. And yes, Harper and the Cons would even walking out in Parliament in protest.
Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament, the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The effect, and to me the manifest purpose, is to concentrate power in the Executive, in other words, the Prime Minister.
Harper and the Cons have turned Parliament into not much more than a smoke screen, a diversion and, much to the assault on the integrity of all Canadians, their own focus group for their attack ads. The longer Harper is in power the more he will become entrenched.
With power concentrated in the hands of the Executive i.e. the Prime Minster, what Parliamentary constellation appears in Canada’s political cosmos is more astrology than astronomy. Unless of course, some catastrophic event occurred like Harper and the Cons got a majority – in which case if God created the Universe, then God save us.
Who is Prime Minister and what Party is in power does make a difference, whether there is a minority or a majority. It makes a huge difference, given the current imbalance of power in favour of the Executive (Prime Minister and governing party) over Parliament, the Senate and the Judiciary. Our parliamentary system was developed over hundreds of years to create a balance to protect our way of life and our freedoms. It is this balance that is being vigorously attacked by Harper and the Cons – e.g. dissolution of Parliament last December and his call-to-arms of his loyal supporters with his deliberately misleading and erroneous allegations on the workings of our Parliamentary System and those upholding it.
Fortunately, we still have elections (at least every four years … I think … we’ll have to see what Harper has in mind when the time comes).
19 June, 2009
- The problem is that Harper and the Cons have made it very clear that they simply do not compromise
Posted (excerpts) to:
20 June:
Saturday's Globe and Mail, Friday, Jun. 19, 2009 07:36PM EDT, Brian Laghi
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/shouldnt-this-man-be-smiling/article1190197/
19 June: Ottawa Citzen:
Ottawa Citzen, "The pause that doesn't refresh", 19 June, 2009, Susan Riley
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/pause+that+doesn+refresh/1711009/story.html#PostComment
You have it starkly wrong on Ignatieff’s position and actions this week. Generally, I found your article hard to follow.
The problem is that Harper and the Cons have made it very clear that they simply do not compromise. Unless, of course, they are taken to the brink of losing power.
This in-your-face, my-way-or-the-highway approach to governing by Harper and the Cons leaves the Opposition very little leverage except to use the ‘non-confidence’ card. Unfortunately there is a general feeling against another election right now. Anyone who forces an election right now runs a very serious risk of a voter backlash. If Ignatieff were to do so, there would be a very real risk of a Conservative majority, taking away the only leverage to force any type of bridle on Harper and the Cons in power.
Also, EI is very important and a very good and expedient way of getting money out to stimulate the economy. However, it is far from an ‘election defining issue’. Harper knew this and so did Ignatieff. Essentially Ignatieff leveraged a non-election issue into guarranteed non-confidence votes in the Fall where the battle can be waged on election defining issues, or a build-up of smaller issues, each by themself not sufficient to force an election.
The best that Ignatieff could do is to force Harper to agree to confidence votes in the future so that even he, Harper, would have some difficulty in shutting parliament down to avoid such again. That’s the realities of the current circumstances. In such context, Ignatieff did exactly the right thing, not only for his own good and the good of the Liberal Party but the good of all Canadians, as time will tell.
Ignatieff this week demonstrated the type of compromise and decisions making that a modern democracy with a complex, open and tolerant, multi-and-competing interest, commerce based society requires. The I’m-right-your-wrong, I’m-big-your-small, sink-or-swim extreme right wing, ideologue approach of Harper, Flaherty and the Cons has no place in it.
Lloyd MacIlquham, cicblog.com/comments.html
20 June:
Saturday's Globe and Mail, Friday, Jun. 19, 2009 07:36PM EDT, Brian Laghi
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/shouldnt-this-man-be-smiling/article1190197/
19 June: Ottawa Citzen:
Ottawa Citzen, "The pause that doesn't refresh", 19 June, 2009, Susan Riley
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/pause+that+doesn+refresh/1711009/story.html#PostComment
You have it starkly wrong on Ignatieff’s position and actions this week. Generally, I found your article hard to follow.
The problem is that Harper and the Cons have made it very clear that they simply do not compromise. Unless, of course, they are taken to the brink of losing power.
This in-your-face, my-way-or-the-highway approach to governing by Harper and the Cons leaves the Opposition very little leverage except to use the ‘non-confidence’ card. Unfortunately there is a general feeling against another election right now. Anyone who forces an election right now runs a very serious risk of a voter backlash. If Ignatieff were to do so, there would be a very real risk of a Conservative majority, taking away the only leverage to force any type of bridle on Harper and the Cons in power.
Also, EI is very important and a very good and expedient way of getting money out to stimulate the economy. However, it is far from an ‘election defining issue’. Harper knew this and so did Ignatieff. Essentially Ignatieff leveraged a non-election issue into guarranteed non-confidence votes in the Fall where the battle can be waged on election defining issues, or a build-up of smaller issues, each by themself not sufficient to force an election.
The best that Ignatieff could do is to force Harper to agree to confidence votes in the future so that even he, Harper, would have some difficulty in shutting parliament down to avoid such again. That’s the realities of the current circumstances. In such context, Ignatieff did exactly the right thing, not only for his own good and the good of the Liberal Party but the good of all Canadians, as time will tell.
Ignatieff this week demonstrated the type of compromise and decisions making that a modern democracy with a complex, open and tolerant, multi-and-competing interest, commerce based society requires. The I’m-right-your-wrong, I’m-big-your-small, sink-or-swim extreme right wing, ideologue approach of Harper, Flaherty and the Cons has no place in it.
Lloyd MacIlquham, cicblog.com/comments.html
18 June, 2009
- If Harper and the Cons were to get a majority all I could say is “God save Canada”.
Comment on: Toronto Star, Opinion, 18 June, 2009, Bob Hepburn
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/652578
There is no question that Harper and the Cons need to be out’d and that Canada and all Canadians would be far, far better off.
However, I think that the polls accurately reflect the general mood that an election is not wanted right now.
A big consideration is, if Ignatieff calls an election now there may be a voter backlash against the Liberal Party and people might vote Conservative out of spite.
- If Harper and the Cons were to get a majority all I could say is “God save Canada”.
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/652578
There is no question that Harper and the Cons need to be out’d and that Canada and all Canadians would be far, far better off.
However, I think that the polls accurately reflect the general mood that an election is not wanted right now.
A big consideration is, if Ignatieff calls an election now there may be a voter backlash against the Liberal Party and people might vote Conservative out of spite.
- If Harper and the Cons were to get a majority all I could say is “God save Canada”.
14 June, 2009
- Flaherty, lecturing the G8?
G&M, “Flaherty sees U.S. deficit as biggest threat to recovery”, 14 June, 2009, Eric Reguly
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/flaherty-sees-us-deficit-as-biggest-threat-to-recovery/article1181282/
Flaherty: “All participants realize the need to control public spending and control public involvement in the private sector”.
Sounds like a right-wing ideology to me – except that even before Harper and Flaherty were forced to admit there was a recession they were spending like crazy.
Does anyone really wonder why the stimulus spending hasn’t materialized yet. Clearly, Harper, Flaherty and the Cons are dragging their feet because their extreme right-wing ideology simply does allow for it. It simply doesn’t matter how many people lose their jobs, savings, homes, way of life, because of it – after all that’s what ‘sink-or-swim’ is really all about, isn’t it.
I guess Harper, Flaherty and the Cons are hoping for the recession to end or the US to do the spending for us.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/flaherty-sees-us-deficit-as-biggest-threat-to-recovery/article1181282/
Flaherty: “All participants realize the need to control public spending and control public involvement in the private sector”.
Sounds like a right-wing ideology to me – except that even before Harper and Flaherty were forced to admit there was a recession they were spending like crazy.
Does anyone really wonder why the stimulus spending hasn’t materialized yet. Clearly, Harper, Flaherty and the Cons are dragging their feet because their extreme right-wing ideology simply does allow for it. It simply doesn’t matter how many people lose their jobs, savings, homes, way of life, because of it – after all that’s what ‘sink-or-swim’ is really all about, isn’t it.
I guess Harper, Flaherty and the Cons are hoping for the recession to end or the US to do the spending for us.
09 June, 2009
- Cyclical ‘Dictatorship’ – The Harper Rule
excerpts submitted to:
- Toronto Star, “If Harper fixed his moat would we ever find out?”, 9 Jun.’09, James Travers
- Toronto Star, "Political apathy fuelled by diminishing role of our MPs and a lack of transparency", 21 Jun.'09, Bruce Campion-Smith
Never mind cyclical ‘deficit’. How about a cyclical ‘dictatorship’. Harper seems to think so. Fortunately we must have an election every four year, Harper himself made that law (or do we??? I’m not sure, ask Harper, I’m sure he will be more than willing to tell us, I think, sometime, or not, who knows).
One of the biggest defenses against dictatorial rule is Freedom of Information. This, of course, was one of the first things that Harper attacked, and vigorously, when he took office. It was not inadvertent or ancillary to good government.
What we need is a political leader, and party, to champion transparency, integrity openness in government and freedom of information. Wait a minute, wasn’t ‘transparency’ Stephen Harper and his Con’s battle cry before they got elected.
Of course, Harper answers to the will of Parliament. So, we can turn to Parliament to protect us against dictatorial rule. And, then there is the Senate as well, with its sober second thought. Surely it will limit Harper and prevent him from implementing any right wing extremist ideologically based policies, especially those that lead to a de facto dictatorship. Harper himself told us that before he got elected. How could a dictator take over with Parliament and the Senate. Unless, of course, you dissolve Parliament when it goes to exercise its Will, call-to-arms a small but significant group of die-hard supporters, and abolish the Senate, or at least attack and hamstring it to the extent that it can’t protect itself, let alone Canada, all Canadians and our way of life. No Prime Minister would do such a thing. Would they?
Lloyd MacIlquham
- Toronto Star, “If Harper fixed his moat would we ever find out?”, 9 Jun.’09, James Travers
- Toronto Star, "Political apathy fuelled by diminishing role of our MPs and a lack of transparency", 21 Jun.'09, Bruce Campion-Smith
Never mind cyclical ‘deficit’. How about a cyclical ‘dictatorship’. Harper seems to think so. Fortunately we must have an election every four year, Harper himself made that law (or do we??? I’m not sure, ask Harper, I’m sure he will be more than willing to tell us, I think, sometime, or not, who knows).
One of the biggest defenses against dictatorial rule is Freedom of Information. This, of course, was one of the first things that Harper attacked, and vigorously, when he took office. It was not inadvertent or ancillary to good government.
What we need is a political leader, and party, to champion transparency, integrity openness in government and freedom of information. Wait a minute, wasn’t ‘transparency’ Stephen Harper and his Con’s battle cry before they got elected.
Of course, Harper answers to the will of Parliament. So, we can turn to Parliament to protect us against dictatorial rule. And, then there is the Senate as well, with its sober second thought. Surely it will limit Harper and prevent him from implementing any right wing extremist ideologically based policies, especially those that lead to a de facto dictatorship. Harper himself told us that before he got elected. How could a dictator take over with Parliament and the Senate. Unless, of course, you dissolve Parliament when it goes to exercise its Will, call-to-arms a small but significant group of die-hard supporters, and abolish the Senate, or at least attack and hamstring it to the extent that it can’t protect itself, let alone Canada, all Canadians and our way of life. No Prime Minister would do such a thing. Would they?
Lloyd MacIlquham
06 June, 2009
- Ignatieff should be implementing his own “Getting tough on Cons” policy (‘Cons’ = ‘The Harper Gang’).
submitted to: Toronto Star, "Liberal revolt", 5 June.'09, Susan Delacourt
http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2009/06/liberal-revolt.html
If mandatory jail sentences do not reduce the frequency of the crime, then not only is there no point, it is counter-productive. It is very expensive and amounts to little more than a mandatory 2 year stint at Con U (for clarification, here ‘Con U’ refers to ‘Convict’s University’ - i.e. the converting of those convicted into hardened criminals while in prison and their learning how to do it right the next time - and not, say, the Conservative election camp) . Harper and the Cons ought to present the evidence to show that this policy is effective in reducing crime.
Harper and the Con’s mantra is “getting tough on crime”. But, how, exactly is Bill C-15 doing it. It may be getting tough on the criminals – i.e. those who are convicted of committing such crimes. But where is the empirical connection between that and getting tough on ‘crime’. When you consider that the evidence apparently in the US is that these measures don’t work then the onus is even more on Harper and the Cons to produce the underlying evidence in support. Otherwise, one can conclude little more than this is being done for the optics, comparable to reducing the GST by 2%. We all, as Canadians, ought to be demanding this of Harper, and not just Ignatieff and the Liberals. It is a question of integrity.
Clearly in the next election Harper and the Cons will be referring to their “tough on crime” stance and it may be very difficult for Ignatieff to say “where’s the proof” at that time. Ignatieff should be implementing his own “getting tough on Cons” policy and now.
http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2009/06/liberal-revolt.html
If mandatory jail sentences do not reduce the frequency of the crime, then not only is there no point, it is counter-productive. It is very expensive and amounts to little more than a mandatory 2 year stint at Con U (for clarification, here ‘Con U’ refers to ‘Convict’s University’ - i.e. the converting of those convicted into hardened criminals while in prison and their learning how to do it right the next time - and not, say, the Conservative election camp) . Harper and the Cons ought to present the evidence to show that this policy is effective in reducing crime.
Harper and the Con’s mantra is “getting tough on crime”. But, how, exactly is Bill C-15 doing it. It may be getting tough on the criminals – i.e. those who are convicted of committing such crimes. But where is the empirical connection between that and getting tough on ‘crime’. When you consider that the evidence apparently in the US is that these measures don’t work then the onus is even more on Harper and the Cons to produce the underlying evidence in support. Otherwise, one can conclude little more than this is being done for the optics, comparable to reducing the GST by 2%. We all, as Canadians, ought to be demanding this of Harper, and not just Ignatieff and the Liberals. It is a question of integrity.
Clearly in the next election Harper and the Cons will be referring to their “tough on crime” stance and it may be very difficult for Ignatieff to say “where’s the proof” at that time. Ignatieff should be implementing his own “getting tough on Cons” policy and now.
05 June, 2009
- So, why has Harper taken so long to take any type of action
Posted to: Globe and Mail, “Premiers rally behind Harper in fight against Buy American”, 5 June, 2009, Brian Laghi, Campbell Clark, Steven Chase and Barrie Mckenna
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/premiers-rally-behind-harper-in-fight-against-buy-american/article1169850/
t seems to me the ‘buy American provisions’ have been ‘in the news’ since the introduction of the Stimulus package. It does not take specific examples to be able to foresee the huge and terrible economic impact on Canadian companies.
So, why has Harper taken so long to take any type of action. As suggested in the article by the time Harper gets around to doing anything the money will have been spent.
Harper and the Cons seem to be able to take the initiative and be very fast with their negative and very non-constructive attack ads.
Why is it when it comes to doing anything constructive to benefit Canada during this economic recession Harper and the Cons are in denial and simply drag their feet regarding taking any meaningful action …
It must be Harper’s and the Cons’ extreme right wing ideological agenda.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/premiers-rally-behind-harper-in-fight-against-buy-american/article1169850/
t seems to me the ‘buy American provisions’ have been ‘in the news’ since the introduction of the Stimulus package. It does not take specific examples to be able to foresee the huge and terrible economic impact on Canadian companies.
So, why has Harper taken so long to take any type of action. As suggested in the article by the time Harper gets around to doing anything the money will have been spent.
Harper and the Cons seem to be able to take the initiative and be very fast with their negative and very non-constructive attack ads.
Why is it when it comes to doing anything constructive to benefit Canada during this economic recession Harper and the Cons are in denial and simply drag their feet regarding taking any meaningful action …
It must be Harper’s and the Cons’ extreme right wing ideological agenda.
04 June, 2009
- Thank God Harper and the Cons don’t have a majority.
Comment submitted to:
Toronto Star, “Learning the lessons of power”, 4 June, 2009, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/645311
If they did, they would not have to worry about any ‘learning curve’ they would simply commence implementing their extreme right wing ideologically based policies and the ‘Good of Canada be Damned!’.
Now at least they have to take it a bit slower. They also have to do it covertly, which leaves the very undesirable prospect of the Canadian electorate not really having much of a clear idea of what Harper and the Cons are really up to. Hopefully, some of the damage will be reversible when Harper and the Cons are turffed from office.
Lloyd MacIlquham
Toronto Star, “Learning the lessons of power”, 4 June, 2009, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/645311
If they did, they would not have to worry about any ‘learning curve’ they would simply commence implementing their extreme right wing ideologically based policies and the ‘Good of Canada be Damned!’.
Now at least they have to take it a bit slower. They also have to do it covertly, which leaves the very undesirable prospect of the Canadian electorate not really having much of a clear idea of what Harper and the Cons are really up to. Hopefully, some of the damage will be reversible when Harper and the Cons are turffed from office.
Lloyd MacIlquham
02 June, 2009
- If Harper and the Con’s Had Never Taken the Helm of the Good Ship Canada Our Deficit Would be less than 10 billion
Submitted to Toronto Star, “Tories wield the deficit truncheonTories wield the deficit truncheon”, Linda Mcquaig, 2 June, 2009
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/643832#Comments
Title: The problem is that Harper, despite having a minority and despite the necessity, logic and fairness of changing the IE benefits, is maintaining his ‘in your face … my way or the highway … Laissez-faire … sink or swim…if the Opposition Parties want it then I will oppose it … right wing extremist ideological …’ attitude.
Good Point:
The Harper and the Cons' self-serving and ill advised reduction of taxes solely to win votes amounts to $34 billion this year. Add in the huge increases in spending like to the military and other areas.
Conclusion: If Harper and the Cons had never taken office, the deficit would be a mere $10 billion or less.
Unfortunately we can’t just simply reverse the damage Harper and the Cons have done in this area, or any of the other areas.
It is very difficult to increase taxes and this, of course, is part of the Harper strategy – just compare some of the attack ads against Ignatieff (vis.: ‘Ignatieff calls himself a tax and spend Liberal’ – I don’t recall Ignatieff saying that, perhaps Harper can point to the sound bite where he says this). It is also very difficult to roll back spending.
This is why what the Liberals achieved in the ‘90’s – i.e. elimination of the deficit, is so outstanding. And, they will have to do it again.
Lloyd MacIlquham
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/643832#Comments
Title: The problem is that Harper, despite having a minority and despite the necessity, logic and fairness of changing the IE benefits, is maintaining his ‘in your face … my way or the highway … Laissez-faire … sink or swim…if the Opposition Parties want it then I will oppose it … right wing extremist ideological …’ attitude.
Good Point:
The Harper and the Cons' self-serving and ill advised reduction of taxes solely to win votes amounts to $34 billion this year. Add in the huge increases in spending like to the military and other areas.
Conclusion: If Harper and the Cons had never taken office, the deficit would be a mere $10 billion or less.
Unfortunately we can’t just simply reverse the damage Harper and the Cons have done in this area, or any of the other areas.
It is very difficult to increase taxes and this, of course, is part of the Harper strategy – just compare some of the attack ads against Ignatieff (vis.: ‘Ignatieff calls himself a tax and spend Liberal’ – I don’t recall Ignatieff saying that, perhaps Harper can point to the sound bite where he says this). It is also very difficult to roll back spending.
This is why what the Liberals achieved in the ‘90’s – i.e. elimination of the deficit, is so outstanding. And, they will have to do it again.
Lloyd MacIlquham
31 May, 2009
- Ignatieff EI Changes verses Harper Stimulus Package
abridged version posted to:
G&M, “Wall adds voice to call for EI reform“, 31 May ’09, Bill Curry
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/wall-adds-voice-to-call-for-ei-reform/article1161074/
The Harper, self-professed ‘stimulus’, package as Ignatieff so aptly pointed out “the stimulus is not out the door”. Part of the reason is that for the infrastructure part, Harper has made it contingent on the provinces and municipalities matching the amounts. In reality Harper doesn’t want to spend the money and has put this equal contribution from the provinces as an excuse.
One question. If the stimulus is not out the door, then why do we have a deficit of over $50 billion. If this includes the necessary borrowing for the stimulus spending, then we have already borrowed the money and so, where is it.
On the other hand, if the Harper government has not yet borrowed the money, and given it would be imprudent to do so without the particular infrastucture, or other project, ready including the provincial contributions, then when it is borrowed just how much greater will the deficit be.
I can only say God help us!
On the other hand the general consensus is that EI benefits go very quickly right to the heart of the matter. It staves off bankruptcy by individuals who have lost their jobs and at the same time provides money that people will spend on all sorts of things and thus stimulate the economy in a fair, across-the-board fashion, without having to spend the huge overhead that is associated with any infrastructure project and concern that it is only going to Conservative friendly ridings simply to buy votes in the next election.
Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Dunca recently stated (on his way into a meeting with the Jim Flaherty and other provincial finance ministers):
"We prefer not to see an election right now, we prefer to see real change to provide fairness for the unemployed," he said on his way into a meeting with the Jim Flaherty and other provincial finance ministers.
The problem is that Harper, despite having a minority and despite the necessity, logic and fairness of changing the IE benefits, is maintaining his ‘in your face … my way or the highway … Laissez-faire … sink or swim…if the Opposition Parties want it then I will oppose it … right wing extremist ideological …’ attitude.
Lloyd MacIlquham
****************
5/31/2009 1:57:05 PM
The Harper, self-professed ‘stimulus’, package as Ignatieff so aptly pointed out “is not out the door”. Part of the reason is that for the infrastructure part, Harper has made it contingent on the provinces and municipalities matching the amounts.
_____________________________________________
One question. If the stimulus is not out the door, then why do we have a deficit of over $50 billion. If this includes the necessary borrowing for the stimulus spending, then we have already borrowed the money and so, where is it. If not what will the deficit be when they do.
_____________________________________________
General consensus is that EI benefits go very quickly to the heart of the matter. It staves off bankruptcy by individuals who have lost their jobs and at the same time provides money that people will spend on daily needs, stimulating the economy in a fair, across-the-board fashion, without having to spend the huge overhead that is associated with any infrastructure project and concern that it is only going to Conservative friendly ridings simply to buy votes in the next election.
_____________________________________________
"We prefer not to see an election right now, we prefer to see real change to provide fairness for the unemployed", Ontario Finance Minsiter
_____________________________________________
The problem is that Harper, despite having a minority and despite the necessity, logic and fairness of the proposed changing the IE benefits, is maintaining his ‘in your face … my way or the highway … Laissez-faire … sink or swim … if the Opposition Parties want it then I will oppose it … right wing extremist ideological …’ attitude.
_____________________________________________
Harper has demonstrated that he and the Cons have no intention of adopting the best policies for Canadians unless he is pushed to the edge and confronted with the real threat of losing power.
_____________________________________________
I can only say, ‘God save us’!
G&M, “Wall adds voice to call for EI reform“, 31 May ’09, Bill Curry
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/wall-adds-voice-to-call-for-ei-reform/article1161074/
The Harper, self-professed ‘stimulus’, package as Ignatieff so aptly pointed out “the stimulus is not out the door”. Part of the reason is that for the infrastructure part, Harper has made it contingent on the provinces and municipalities matching the amounts. In reality Harper doesn’t want to spend the money and has put this equal contribution from the provinces as an excuse.
One question. If the stimulus is not out the door, then why do we have a deficit of over $50 billion. If this includes the necessary borrowing for the stimulus spending, then we have already borrowed the money and so, where is it.
On the other hand, if the Harper government has not yet borrowed the money, and given it would be imprudent to do so without the particular infrastucture, or other project, ready including the provincial contributions, then when it is borrowed just how much greater will the deficit be.
I can only say God help us!
On the other hand the general consensus is that EI benefits go very quickly right to the heart of the matter. It staves off bankruptcy by individuals who have lost their jobs and at the same time provides money that people will spend on all sorts of things and thus stimulate the economy in a fair, across-the-board fashion, without having to spend the huge overhead that is associated with any infrastructure project and concern that it is only going to Conservative friendly ridings simply to buy votes in the next election.
Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Dunca recently stated (on his way into a meeting with the Jim Flaherty and other provincial finance ministers):
"We prefer not to see an election right now, we prefer to see real change to provide fairness for the unemployed," he said on his way into a meeting with the Jim Flaherty and other provincial finance ministers.
The problem is that Harper, despite having a minority and despite the necessity, logic and fairness of changing the IE benefits, is maintaining his ‘in your face … my way or the highway … Laissez-faire … sink or swim…if the Opposition Parties want it then I will oppose it … right wing extremist ideological …’ attitude.
Lloyd MacIlquham
****************
5/31/2009 1:57:05 PM
The Harper, self-professed ‘stimulus’, package as Ignatieff so aptly pointed out “is not out the door”. Part of the reason is that for the infrastructure part, Harper has made it contingent on the provinces and municipalities matching the amounts.
_____________________________________________
One question. If the stimulus is not out the door, then why do we have a deficit of over $50 billion. If this includes the necessary borrowing for the stimulus spending, then we have already borrowed the money and so, where is it. If not what will the deficit be when they do.
_____________________________________________
General consensus is that EI benefits go very quickly to the heart of the matter. It staves off bankruptcy by individuals who have lost their jobs and at the same time provides money that people will spend on daily needs, stimulating the economy in a fair, across-the-board fashion, without having to spend the huge overhead that is associated with any infrastructure project and concern that it is only going to Conservative friendly ridings simply to buy votes in the next election.
_____________________________________________
"We prefer not to see an election right now, we prefer to see real change to provide fairness for the unemployed", Ontario Finance Minsiter
_____________________________________________
The problem is that Harper, despite having a minority and despite the necessity, logic and fairness of the proposed changing the IE benefits, is maintaining his ‘in your face … my way or the highway … Laissez-faire … sink or swim … if the Opposition Parties want it then I will oppose it … right wing extremist ideological …’ attitude.
_____________________________________________
Harper has demonstrated that he and the Cons have no intention of adopting the best policies for Canadians unless he is pushed to the edge and confronted with the real threat of losing power.
_____________________________________________
I can only say, ‘God save us’!
30 May, 2009
- Poll on Patriotism Probably Skewed by Die Hard Harperites
Post to G&M, "Harper's a Tims man, but Ignatieff inspires", 30 May '09, Brian Laghi
I think one needs to look at the methodology of a Poll when it indicates that Canadians consider Harper more patriotic, especially considering his general long term plan is to dismantle Federalism and protect Alberta’s interested to the exclusion of the rest of Canada.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
For example, what per centage of those with High School or less education were represented in the poll (this is important since the poll reveals such a wide margin between support in this group in favour of Harper). Also, what per centage of those from Alberta were represented in the poll. What about the wording of the question - if ‘patriotism’ somehow relates back to Alberta, then I can see the result.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
And, of course, there is a significant per centage of the Canadian population that are die hard supporters of Harper and the Cons. Who are not interested in the facts, reality or the good of the Canadian people but blindly support everything Harper and the Cons stand for. It is very likely that when asked in a poll they will all answer in favour of Harper, especially given the signals from Harper and the Cons that they are making ‘patriotism’ a major campaign issue. Whereas the general population will not be so one sided. This skewing probably accounts for the poll result on patriotism.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
The Poll explains why the Harper attack ads are designed to communicate to people on the lowest of denominators, fear mongering and in this case, Xenophobia as well. Such ‘propaganda’ are typical of extreme right wing idealogues with really no credentials except to appeal to a small segment of the population. I guess that’s what Harper and the Cons mean when they refer to their party as a ‘Populist’ party.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Lloyd MacIlquham
I think one needs to look at the methodology of a Poll when it indicates that Canadians consider Harper more patriotic, especially considering his general long term plan is to dismantle Federalism and protect Alberta’s interested to the exclusion of the rest of Canada.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
For example, what per centage of those with High School or less education were represented in the poll (this is important since the poll reveals such a wide margin between support in this group in favour of Harper). Also, what per centage of those from Alberta were represented in the poll. What about the wording of the question - if ‘patriotism’ somehow relates back to Alberta, then I can see the result.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
And, of course, there is a significant per centage of the Canadian population that are die hard supporters of Harper and the Cons. Who are not interested in the facts, reality or the good of the Canadian people but blindly support everything Harper and the Cons stand for. It is very likely that when asked in a poll they will all answer in favour of Harper, especially given the signals from Harper and the Cons that they are making ‘patriotism’ a major campaign issue. Whereas the general population will not be so one sided. This skewing probably accounts for the poll result on patriotism.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
The Poll explains why the Harper attack ads are designed to communicate to people on the lowest of denominators, fear mongering and in this case, Xenophobia as well. Such ‘propaganda’ are typical of extreme right wing idealogues with really no credentials except to appeal to a small segment of the population. I guess that’s what Harper and the Cons mean when they refer to their party as a ‘Populist’ party.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Lloyd MacIlquham
29 May, 2009
- Liberals should do a response ad comparing Harper credentials, or lack thereof, with Ignatieff’s
Posted to: G&M, “Just answer the question, Iggy”, Rick Salutin, 29 May ‘09
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/just-answer-the-question-iggy/article1158499/#
5/29/2009 12:58:28 PM
I suspect that these attack ads are designed to obscure attention away from Harper himself – i.e. Harper’s background, or lack thereof, and his very close connection, actual and ideological, to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party in the US. One need simply compare Harper’s background to that of Ignatieff to see that Ignatieff outclasses Harper by a country mile, whatever that ‘country’ is. There is simply no comparison.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Perhaps the Liberal should come out with an Ad that makes a comparison between Harper’s background and Ignatieff’s background. Then at least people would have something upon which they may base a rational decision and see Harper for what he really is – an extreme right wing idealogue with really no credentials except to appeal to a small segment of the population. I guess that’s what they mean when they call themselves a ‘Populist’ party.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
The Harper attack ads are designed to communicate to people on the lowest of denominators, fear mongering and in this case, Xenophobia as well. There is no intention of discourse on any type of meaningful level, above playing on people’s raw emotion. One need only observe that they are totally divest of any explanation as to why Ignatieff’s background outside Canada might be a drawback in leading our country. Of course, such ads, they used to be called propaganda, typically consisting of fear mongering and xenophobia, form one of the main pillars upon which all extreme right wing ideologue groups support their objectives.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
With Harper’s strong leaning to the United States and strong ideological ties to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party one might suspect that he will be looking for a job there when he ‘retires from office’. Perhaps as a lecturer at Harvard. Given his recent personal PR campaign in the States, at the tax payer’s expense, this is not such a far out thought.
…………………………………………………………………
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/just-answer-the-question-iggy/article1158499/#
5/29/2009 12:58:28 PM
I suspect that these attack ads are designed to obscure attention away from Harper himself – i.e. Harper’s background, or lack thereof, and his very close connection, actual and ideological, to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party in the US. One need simply compare Harper’s background to that of Ignatieff to see that Ignatieff outclasses Harper by a country mile, whatever that ‘country’ is. There is simply no comparison.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Perhaps the Liberal should come out with an Ad that makes a comparison between Harper’s background and Ignatieff’s background. Then at least people would have something upon which they may base a rational decision and see Harper for what he really is – an extreme right wing idealogue with really no credentials except to appeal to a small segment of the population. I guess that’s what they mean when they call themselves a ‘Populist’ party.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
The Harper attack ads are designed to communicate to people on the lowest of denominators, fear mongering and in this case, Xenophobia as well. There is no intention of discourse on any type of meaningful level, above playing on people’s raw emotion. One need only observe that they are totally divest of any explanation as to why Ignatieff’s background outside Canada might be a drawback in leading our country. Of course, such ads, they used to be called propaganda, typically consisting of fear mongering and xenophobia, form one of the main pillars upon which all extreme right wing ideologue groups support their objectives.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
With Harper’s strong leaning to the United States and strong ideological ties to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party one might suspect that he will be looking for a job there when he ‘retires from office’. Perhaps as a lecturer at Harvard. Given his recent personal PR campaign in the States, at the tax payer’s expense, this is not such a far out thought.
…………………………………………………………………
23 May, 2009
- The open, transparent, free and unobstructed flow of information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights.
Submitted to the Toronot Star, "Dark virus infects budget office", 23 May '09, James Travers.
The open, transparent, free and unobstructed flow of information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights. Its obstruction and obscuration, and in the extreme, by Harper and the Con’s shows us the dire need for this
"How can you cast your vote intelligently if you don't know what's going on?"
(As Travers so aptly quotes Robert Marleau, information commissioner).
Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.
Access to information affords the stuff whereby the individual may forge both sword and shield to uphold human rights, without which no amount legislation can guaranty these rights and so, should therefore stand on the same footing.
...
Many people criticize the media for not reporting fairly and accurately.
When information is obscured and perverted at the source by the government, such is what is happening now by Harper and the Con’s, this criticism is not merely blaming the messenger – since the media could make this a “cause de celebre”.
When the free flow is obstructed and curtailed it gives the government a leverage to gain influence in the media, by favouring one media outlet over another. The media is also to blame as well for this but then, they’re only human - aren’t they? I don’t know, ask Travers.
The open, transparent, free and unobstructed flow of information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights. Its obstruction and obscuration, and in the extreme, by Harper and the Con’s shows us the dire need for this
"How can you cast your vote intelligently if you don't know what's going on?"
(As Travers so aptly quotes Robert Marleau, information commissioner).
Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.
Access to information affords the stuff whereby the individual may forge both sword and shield to uphold human rights, without which no amount legislation can guaranty these rights and so, should therefore stand on the same footing.
...
Many people criticize the media for not reporting fairly and accurately.
When information is obscured and perverted at the source by the government, such is what is happening now by Harper and the Con’s, this criticism is not merely blaming the messenger – since the media could make this a “cause de celebre”.
When the free flow is obstructed and curtailed it gives the government a leverage to gain influence in the media, by favouring one media outlet over another. The media is also to blame as well for this but then, they’re only human - aren’t they? I don’t know, ask Travers.
18 May, 2009
- Carbon Tax was a Non-Issue in the BC Election – The Real Issue was the Uselessness of Fixed date Elections
Globe and mail, “How a B.C. carbon tax rose from Dion's ashes“,Stewart Elgie And David Boyd And Chris Waddell, May 17, 2009 at 10:51 PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090515.wcocarbon18/BNStory/specialComment/home
I am not sure that the election in BC supports all your conclusions. The BC election was not issue based, it was called simply because of legislation requiring an election every four years. The campaigns were very low key, to say the least. The electorate were very much disengaged. This non-necessary, non-issue, non-engaged, dis-interest was manifested in the lowest turnout in BC history (50%) and that the result were essentially the same as before.
Carol James tried to make the carbon tax an issue but, except getting the environmentalists mad at her, it really did nothing.
One might say that the economy so dominated the election that no other issue had much traction. But, I am not sure that this is at all accurate. For one thing, NDP, in my opinion anyway, is not viewed by the electorate as an “economy issues” party. So, in an election where the economy so dominated one would expect that it would be very one sided and result in a bigger majority for the Liberals. But it wasn’t and it didn’t.
On the other side, I don’t think you can conclude that there was a backlash against the Liberals for their handling of the economy, or for their carbon tax. Once again if this were the case you would expect that the NDP supporters would be motivated and mobilized, which the % of voters and the results does not bear out – nobody was motivated, in the least.
The real issue in this election, to me, is the requirement to have a fixed election date, set out in legislation. It may work for Americans but then, we’re not Americans, are we.
The carbon tax was pretty much irrelevant to the election or its results and so I can’t see how you can use the BC election to infer very much regarding the carbon tax issue or global warming generally.
Lloyd Maclquham
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090515.wcocarbon18/BNStory/specialComment/home
I am not sure that the election in BC supports all your conclusions. The BC election was not issue based, it was called simply because of legislation requiring an election every four years. The campaigns were very low key, to say the least. The electorate were very much disengaged. This non-necessary, non-issue, non-engaged, dis-interest was manifested in the lowest turnout in BC history (50%) and that the result were essentially the same as before.
Carol James tried to make the carbon tax an issue but, except getting the environmentalists mad at her, it really did nothing.
One might say that the economy so dominated the election that no other issue had much traction. But, I am not sure that this is at all accurate. For one thing, NDP, in my opinion anyway, is not viewed by the electorate as an “economy issues” party. So, in an election where the economy so dominated one would expect that it would be very one sided and result in a bigger majority for the Liberals. But it wasn’t and it didn’t.
On the other side, I don’t think you can conclude that there was a backlash against the Liberals for their handling of the economy, or for their carbon tax. Once again if this were the case you would expect that the NDP supporters would be motivated and mobilized, which the % of voters and the results does not bear out – nobody was motivated, in the least.
The real issue in this election, to me, is the requirement to have a fixed election date, set out in legislation. It may work for Americans but then, we’re not Americans, are we.
The carbon tax was pretty much irrelevant to the election or its results and so I can’t see how you can use the BC election to infer very much regarding the carbon tax issue or global warming generally.
Lloyd Maclquham
- Comment Posted to the G&M
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/635530#Comments
About Lloyd MacIlquham at 11:37 AM Sunday, May 17 2009
His composition is superb and his point well made. I have no doubt I had, -- after a long time, -- a chance to read some lines of high wisdom.
Submitted by zoroni at 5:46 PM Sunday, May 17 2009
About Lloyd MacIlquham at 11:37 AM Sunday, May 17 2009
His composition is superb and his point well made. I have no doubt I had, -- after a long time, -- a chance to read some lines of high wisdom.
Submitted by zoroni at 5:46 PM Sunday, May 17 2009
17 May, 2009
- History will look back at Harper and the Con’s as a pack of vicious, mean spirited, self-serving, power mongering, extreme right wing ideologues
submitted 17 May '09, 8:35am(PDT) to:
Toronto Star, “Knee-deep in political mud and still sinking”, 17 May ’09, Angelo Persichilli http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/635530
" Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times."
I remember Mulroney and I remember Turner. I also remember Chrétien and of course, Martin. What I don’t remember is anything that comes anywhere near the blatant distortion of truth and unabashed slanderous attacks that Harper and the Con’s are doing. Harper has “ramped it up” to a level never seen before in Canadian politics. Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times.
10 –15 years ago we may have referred to it as ‘attack” ads but when comparing it to what Harper and the Cons are doing it was nothing more than boy scouts talking around a camp fire. “The truth be told” it is as different as “an apple and a fridge”.
"History will look back at Stephen Harper and the Con’s as a pack of vicious, mean spirited, self-serving, power mongering, extreme right wing ideologues"
Also, I would like to point out that the Conservative Party of Stephen Harper is not that same party as the Progressive Conservative Party (PC’s) of Brian Mulroney and John Diefenbaker. Again, “The truth be told” they are as different as “an apple and a fridge”.
I never supported the PC’s but I acknowledge that the PC’s had a long and venerable history serving Canada with honour and distinction. They should be proud of their legacy and in fact most Canadians, I suggest, are.
When history looks back at Steven Harper and the Cons I cannot imagine that anyone would dream of suggesting the Harper and the Cons have served Canada with honour and distinction.
Rather, I suggest that history will look back at Stephen Harper and the Con’s as a pack of vicious, mean spirited, self-serving, power mongering, extreme right wing ideologues that attempted to systematically dismantled national unity and tear asunder the social fabric that we, through the PC’s and Liberals, spent over a century weaving.
Toronto Star, “Knee-deep in political mud and still sinking”, 17 May ’09, Angelo Persichilli http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/635530
" Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times."
I remember Mulroney and I remember Turner. I also remember Chrétien and of course, Martin. What I don’t remember is anything that comes anywhere near the blatant distortion of truth and unabashed slanderous attacks that Harper and the Con’s are doing. Harper has “ramped it up” to a level never seen before in Canadian politics. Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times.
10 –15 years ago we may have referred to it as ‘attack” ads but when comparing it to what Harper and the Cons are doing it was nothing more than boy scouts talking around a camp fire. “The truth be told” it is as different as “an apple and a fridge”.
"History will look back at Stephen Harper and the Con’s as a pack of vicious, mean spirited, self-serving, power mongering, extreme right wing ideologues"
Also, I would like to point out that the Conservative Party of Stephen Harper is not that same party as the Progressive Conservative Party (PC’s) of Brian Mulroney and John Diefenbaker. Again, “The truth be told” they are as different as “an apple and a fridge”.
I never supported the PC’s but I acknowledge that the PC’s had a long and venerable history serving Canada with honour and distinction. They should be proud of their legacy and in fact most Canadians, I suggest, are.
When history looks back at Steven Harper and the Cons I cannot imagine that anyone would dream of suggesting the Harper and the Cons have served Canada with honour and distinction.
Rather, I suggest that history will look back at Stephen Harper and the Con’s as a pack of vicious, mean spirited, self-serving, power mongering, extreme right wing ideologues that attempted to systematically dismantled national unity and tear asunder the social fabric that we, through the PC’s and Liberals, spent over a century weaving.
14 May, 2009
- Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times.
Comment posted to:
Globe and Mail, “Desperate times for Tories call for desperate attack ads”, May 14, 2009, Lawrence Martin
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090513.wcomartin14/BNStory/specialComment/home
For Harper and the Con’s to attack Ignatieff as they are, and will be, is sheer partisan politics and dishonest.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
One need only recall their ‘call-to-arms’ last December to see how potentially divisive and hurtful Harper and the Cons’ propaganda campaigns can be to the future of our country.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of duplicity, deception, obscuration, suppression of truth and, slandering and mud slinging in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
For Harper Parliament is little more than as a focus group to try out new attack strategies under the cover of Parliamentary privilege. He has already shown us his distain for Parliament and disrespect for the most fundamental of our Democratic institutions.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The problem is that Harper and the Con’s style of politicking is so pervasive in the current landscape that some of us are unable to see clearly the fundamental destructiveness of it not only to our nation as a whole but our social fabric and self-image.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Hopefully all Canadians will let Harper know in no uncertain terms that we don’t go for his type of rules and government.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Although we have had a number of elections in close order and another would be painful, in the long run, the sooner we get rid of Harper and his Con’s the better for all Canadians and our way of life.
Globe and Mail, “Desperate times for Tories call for desperate attack ads”, May 14, 2009, Lawrence Martin
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090513.wcomartin14/BNStory/specialComment/home
For Harper and the Con’s to attack Ignatieff as they are, and will be, is sheer partisan politics and dishonest.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
One need only recall their ‘call-to-arms’ last December to see how potentially divisive and hurtful Harper and the Cons’ propaganda campaigns can be to the future of our country.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics is of duplicity, deception, obscuration, suppression of truth and, slandering and mud slinging in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
For Harper Parliament is little more than as a focus group to try out new attack strategies under the cover of Parliamentary privilege. He has already shown us his distain for Parliament and disrespect for the most fundamental of our Democratic institutions.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The problem is that Harper and the Con’s style of politicking is so pervasive in the current landscape that some of us are unable to see clearly the fundamental destructiveness of it not only to our nation as a whole but our social fabric and self-image.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Hopefully all Canadians will let Harper know in no uncertain terms that we don’t go for his type of rules and government.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Although we have had a number of elections in close order and another would be painful, in the long run, the sooner we get rid of Harper and his Con’s the better for all Canadians and our way of life.
10 May, 2009
- Laissez-faire, ‘sink-or-swim’ approach has no place in a modern, complex, economy based society such as is Canada’s
My E-mail to lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca
sent 10 May.'09:
Hi Lorrie Goldstein
The following is a comment on your article in the Toronto Sun, “A 'liberal' state of mind”, 10th May 2009, 3:49am
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/05/10/9410256-sun.html
I am quite surprised that, in this day and age, your newspaper does not allow people to post comments – both the Toronto Star and Globe and mail do.
I am posting this to my blog:
http://cicblog.com/comments.html
You may E-mail me, at this E-mail address, a response if you wish for my consideration.
“Freedom’ and ‘individual liberty, material security, voluntary co-operation and social order’ are all afforded by a good standard of living. One need only look to the deficiency of freedom, individual liberty, material security, voluntary co-operation and social order people in third world countries have, except those very few that have money. One need also only look at those living in poverty in the United States.
The foundation of a good standard of living is education. It is clear that education must start early in life. Education has the added benefit of produces well adjusted members of society who understand and have learned the need to co-operate and live in harmony with everyone else.
One need only look at the causes of the current and severe economic downturn to see the problems of allowing ‘entrepreneurial’ forces to run amuck and unchecked.
Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., may be a good psychiatrist, I have no idea, but simply testifying at thousands of trials in the United States neither means, per se, he is good (one need only look at Dr. Charles Smith in Ontario) nor that he has any understanding of the Canadian social or political context. Canadian society, precisely in this regard, is very much distinct to US society.
For example, in my observation, Canadians believe firmly in the social safety net actively established and maintained by government policies. The Americans subscribe to a far more laissez-faire, ‘sink-or-swim’ approach to society and their economy. This by itself is fatal to relying on his opinion in these matters as they apply to the Canadian context and one need not go further to investigate his competence to give an informed opinion on political matters, or the merits of said opinions.
It seems to me that this is more a testament to the power of education and social freedom in a country like the United States – i.e. no matter what the opinion, you can find someone with high credentials expounding it, just watch some of the ‘Infomercials’, or read, or listen to, some of their media editorials.
On the other hand I can see how those subscribing to a right wing extremist ideology might be tempted to blindly embrace his ruminations with or without an objective assessment of their merits or relevance to the Canadian context.
If I recall it seems to me the comment by Scott Reid had to do with the Harper government shirking the responsibility of our Federal government regarding day care and adopting the ‘sink-or-swim’ approach the American seems to embrace so much. Day care is a serious and important element of our society, and our future, and the education of our young. $100 a month does not come close to paying for it (If you can do it, please let me know how I can and I would be more than happy to retract this statement). Realistically, the only way that meaningful, quality Day-Care will be available to all Canadians, and not just those with a high income, is a program established and maintained by the government. Such government initiatives work, we all know that.
It seems to me that "winners," as opposed to "losers," is referring to Harper’s Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty’s statement regarding refusing to helping out the Ford Motor Company in Jan.’08 – vis.: “quite frankly, politicians aren't very good at picking business winners and losers" (G&M, 16 Jan.’08, “No bailout for Ford, Flaherty says”).
When looked at in the current economic context we see just how wrong Flaherty was, and the extent to which blindly and dogmatically applying this laissez-faire, right wing, extremist ideology expounded by Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., is out of step and damaging in a modern, complex, economy based society such as Canada has. On the other hand, if Flaherty was speaking for himself, Harper and the Con’s then, I am sure, he got their inability to take an active approach to running the country right – one need only look at the events as they have been unfolding since Jan.’08.
Lloyd MacIlquham, Nanaimo, BC,
sent 10 May.'09:
Hi Lorrie Goldstein
The following is a comment on your article in the Toronto Sun, “A 'liberal' state of mind”, 10th May 2009, 3:49am
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/05/10/9410256-sun.html
I am quite surprised that, in this day and age, your newspaper does not allow people to post comments – both the Toronto Star and Globe and mail do.
I am posting this to my blog:
http://cicblog.com/comments.html
You may E-mail me, at this E-mail address, a response if you wish for my consideration.
“Freedom’ and ‘individual liberty, material security, voluntary co-operation and social order’ are all afforded by a good standard of living. One need only look to the deficiency of freedom, individual liberty, material security, voluntary co-operation and social order people in third world countries have, except those very few that have money. One need also only look at those living in poverty in the United States.
The foundation of a good standard of living is education. It is clear that education must start early in life. Education has the added benefit of produces well adjusted members of society who understand and have learned the need to co-operate and live in harmony with everyone else.
One need only look at the causes of the current and severe economic downturn to see the problems of allowing ‘entrepreneurial’ forces to run amuck and unchecked.
Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., may be a good psychiatrist, I have no idea, but simply testifying at thousands of trials in the United States neither means, per se, he is good (one need only look at Dr. Charles Smith in Ontario) nor that he has any understanding of the Canadian social or political context. Canadian society, precisely in this regard, is very much distinct to US society.
For example, in my observation, Canadians believe firmly in the social safety net actively established and maintained by government policies. The Americans subscribe to a far more laissez-faire, ‘sink-or-swim’ approach to society and their economy. This by itself is fatal to relying on his opinion in these matters as they apply to the Canadian context and one need not go further to investigate his competence to give an informed opinion on political matters, or the merits of said opinions.
It seems to me that this is more a testament to the power of education and social freedom in a country like the United States – i.e. no matter what the opinion, you can find someone with high credentials expounding it, just watch some of the ‘Infomercials’, or read, or listen to, some of their media editorials.
On the other hand I can see how those subscribing to a right wing extremist ideology might be tempted to blindly embrace his ruminations with or without an objective assessment of their merits or relevance to the Canadian context.
If I recall it seems to me the comment by Scott Reid had to do with the Harper government shirking the responsibility of our Federal government regarding day care and adopting the ‘sink-or-swim’ approach the American seems to embrace so much. Day care is a serious and important element of our society, and our future, and the education of our young. $100 a month does not come close to paying for it (If you can do it, please let me know how I can and I would be more than happy to retract this statement). Realistically, the only way that meaningful, quality Day-Care will be available to all Canadians, and not just those with a high income, is a program established and maintained by the government. Such government initiatives work, we all know that.
It seems to me that "winners," as opposed to "losers," is referring to Harper’s Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty’s statement regarding refusing to helping out the Ford Motor Company in Jan.’08 – vis.: “quite frankly, politicians aren't very good at picking business winners and losers" (G&M, 16 Jan.’08, “No bailout for Ford, Flaherty says”).
When looked at in the current economic context we see just how wrong Flaherty was, and the extent to which blindly and dogmatically applying this laissez-faire, right wing, extremist ideology expounded by Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., is out of step and damaging in a modern, complex, economy based society such as Canada has. On the other hand, if Flaherty was speaking for himself, Harper and the Con’s then, I am sure, he got their inability to take an active approach to running the country right – one need only look at the events as they have been unfolding since Jan.’08.
Lloyd MacIlquham, Nanaimo, BC,
09 May, 2009
- Harper’s Ham-Stringing and Strong-Arming Our Parliamentary and Administrative Watch-Dogs
comment on: Toronto Star, “Another victory for hired guns”, May 09, 2009 04:30 AM, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/631673
There I no doubt that Harper is systematically and deliberately ham-stringing and strong-arming the various Parliamentary and administrative institutions whose purpose is to ‘keep the government honest’ by ensuring the people of Canada know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and in timely fashion. That “bureaucrats helped the government deliver an essentially misleading economic update while mixing public policy and political provocation” is alarming and should be a warning to all Canadians.
This of course is an integral part of his general suppression of information and hiding and distorting the truth. This is also reflected in his total distain for integrity of Parliament. The goal is, obviously and as suggested, to concentrate power in his hands alone, without regard for the will of Parliament or the will of the people of Canada.
Lloyd MacIlquham
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/631673
There I no doubt that Harper is systematically and deliberately ham-stringing and strong-arming the various Parliamentary and administrative institutions whose purpose is to ‘keep the government honest’ by ensuring the people of Canada know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and in timely fashion. That “bureaucrats helped the government deliver an essentially misleading economic update while mixing public policy and political provocation” is alarming and should be a warning to all Canadians.
This of course is an integral part of his general suppression of information and hiding and distorting the truth. This is also reflected in his total distain for integrity of Parliament. The goal is, obviously and as suggested, to concentrate power in his hands alone, without regard for the will of Parliament or the will of the people of Canada.
Lloyd MacIlquham
- The only thing that has hit the mark here is that Ignatieff is a fast learner - whereas, Harper, and the Cons’s, is a fast deceiver - and this is a
Submitted to: Toronto Star, "Ignatieff's Turner problem", May 09, 2009 04:30 AM, Thomas Walkom
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/631587
If you look at the examples given in this article the only problem Ignatieff might have is being open, transparent, logical, and, basically, being a straight shooter.
It is certainly out of step with the Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics of duplicity, deception, obscuration, suppression of truth and, slandering and mud slinging in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues.
But to suggest that that makes him out of touch with Canada is perverse and, fortunately, erroneous.
Also, implied is that somehow Lester B. Pearson is a leader that we all, as Canadians, ought not to turn to as an example of the type of competence and integrity that we should not only desire in our leader but demand in our leader.
The problem is that the Harper and Con’s style of politicking is so pervasive in the current landscape that some of us are unable to see clearly the fundamental destructiveness of it not only to our nation as a whole but our social fabric and self-image.
The only thing that has hit the mark here is that Ignatieff is a fast learner - whereas, Harper, and the Cons’s, is a fast deceiver - and this is a good thing.
Lloyd MacIlquham
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/631587
If you look at the examples given in this article the only problem Ignatieff might have is being open, transparent, logical, and, basically, being a straight shooter.
It is certainly out of step with the Harper, and the Con’s generally, style politics of duplicity, deception, obscuration, suppression of truth and, slandering and mud slinging in lieu of serious and sober response to important issues.
But to suggest that that makes him out of touch with Canada is perverse and, fortunately, erroneous.
Also, implied is that somehow Lester B. Pearson is a leader that we all, as Canadians, ought not to turn to as an example of the type of competence and integrity that we should not only desire in our leader but demand in our leader.
The problem is that the Harper and Con’s style of politicking is so pervasive in the current landscape that some of us are unable to see clearly the fundamental destructiveness of it not only to our nation as a whole but our social fabric and self-image.
The only thing that has hit the mark here is that Ignatieff is a fast learner - whereas, Harper, and the Cons’s, is a fast deceiver - and this is a good thing.
Lloyd MacIlquham
08 May, 2009
- Reply to My Comments posted to Toronto Star, 7 May '09 - see below
To Lloyd MacIlquham
Your posting under "Without transparency..." is one of the best I have seen in the Star. I hope that a lot of people read it, especially those Conservative (Reform/Alliance) supporters who want to put Harper on a pedestal so they can prostrate themselves before him.
Submitted by E.B. at 12:50 PM Thursday, May 07 2009
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/630362#Comments
Your posting under "Without transparency..." is one of the best I have seen in the Star. I hope that a lot of people read it, especially those Conservative (Reform/Alliance) supporters who want to put Harper on a pedestal so they can prostrate themselves before him.
Submitted by E.B. at 12:50 PM Thursday, May 07 2009
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/630362#Comments
07 May, 2009
- Without transparency and the free, undistorted and unobstructed access to information the line between ‘Education’ and ‘Propaganda’ can be blurred
submitted to:
Toronto Star, 'Education our only magic elixir', May 07, 2009 04:30 AM, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/630362#Comments
Just Look at Harper and the Con’s
Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times. They consider it ‘Educating the Public to Conservative Values’ (compare Harper’s statement at the beginning of the last election).
Like any propaganda machine ‘obscuration and obstruction’ of access to the truth is fundamental. Harper and the Con’s deliberate and extensive restricting and obstructing access to information is well documented. So to are his, and their, hiding and distorting the truth; responding to serious, reasonable and legitimate questions with personal attacks and slurs; and, their dark-ages attitude to Science and Scientific research.
I think education is vital but we must make sure that what people are applying it to is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that they have free, undistorted and unobstructed access to it.
Lloyd MacIlquham
Toronto Star, 'Education our only magic elixir', May 07, 2009 04:30 AM, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/630362#Comments
Just Look at Harper and the Con’s
Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times. They consider it ‘Educating the Public to Conservative Values’ (compare Harper’s statement at the beginning of the last election).
Like any propaganda machine ‘obscuration and obstruction’ of access to the truth is fundamental. Harper and the Con’s deliberate and extensive restricting and obstructing access to information is well documented. So to are his, and their, hiding and distorting the truth; responding to serious, reasonable and legitimate questions with personal attacks and slurs; and, their dark-ages attitude to Science and Scientific research.
I think education is vital but we must make sure that what people are applying it to is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that they have free, undistorted and unobstructed access to it.
Lloyd MacIlquham
06 May, 2009
- You choose: Ignatieff – help those that need help v. Harper – sink or swim
Submitted 6 May.’09 8:02am (PDT) to:
Toronto Star,'Why Ignatieff's Liberals changed their tune on EI', Chantal Hébert, 6 May.'09
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/629664
Suggesting that the Liberals’ emphasis on EI is based on ‘electoral credit’ has things backwards. EI is part of Canada’s social safety net which is a defining feature of our society and an integral part of our social fabric. In a recession more people require EI and require it to a greater extent. Thus, EI becomes more important to more people. As noted this is particularly true in Ontario.
A fundamental aspect of government is to protect those that need protection and help those that need help. That Ignatieff and the Federal Liberals feel that it is their duty to do exactly this, especially when Harper and the Con’s fundamental ideology incorporates a ‘sink or swim’ approach, can hardly be said to be politicing to voters.
Lloyd MacIlquham
Toronto Star,'Why Ignatieff's Liberals changed their tune on EI', Chantal Hébert, 6 May.'09
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/629664
Suggesting that the Liberals’ emphasis on EI is based on ‘electoral credit’ has things backwards. EI is part of Canada’s social safety net which is a defining feature of our society and an integral part of our social fabric. In a recession more people require EI and require it to a greater extent. Thus, EI becomes more important to more people. As noted this is particularly true in Ontario.
A fundamental aspect of government is to protect those that need protection and help those that need help. That Ignatieff and the Federal Liberals feel that it is their duty to do exactly this, especially when Harper and the Con’s fundamental ideology incorporates a ‘sink or swim’ approach, can hardly be said to be politicing to voters.
Lloyd MacIlquham
05 May, 2009
- Harper’s basic strategies is to marginalize Parliament and concentrate all power in his hands.
submitted to the Toronto Star, 5 May'09: '
Election chatter: Don't go there', James Travers, TS, 5 May'09
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/628967
If the Liberal formed a government Harper would be just as disruptive, divisive, belligerent and disrespectful, if not more so, of the comity of Parliament, a fundamental principle of Westminster democracies, as the was when Martin was PM, when he disrespected its laws, which he himself initiated, by calling an early election last Fall and, when he shirked the will Parliament by suspending it. One need only recall the ‘call-to-arms’ and threat of division that Harper and the Con’s fostered in their build-up to his disbanding of Parliament.
It is clear that one of Harper’s basic strategies is to marginalize Parliament and concentrate all power in his hands. For him Parliament is little more than as a focus group to try out new attack strategies under the cover of Parliamentary privilege. To this end, Harper and the Con’s have developed and implement a propaganda machine the likes of which have not been seen in Western democracies in recent times.
Although we have had a number of elections in close order and another would be painful, in the long run, the sooner we get rid of Harper and his Con’s the better for all Canadians and our way of life.
Lloyd MacIlquham
Election chatter: Don't go there', James Travers, TS, 5 May'09
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/628967
If the Liberal formed a government Harper would be just as disruptive, divisive, belligerent and disrespectful, if not more so, of the comity of Parliament, a fundamental principle of Westminster democracies, as the was when Martin was PM, when he disrespected its laws, which he himself initiated, by calling an early election last Fall and, when he shirked the will Parliament by suspending it. One need only recall the ‘call-to-arms’ and threat of division that Harper and the Con’s fostered in their build-up to his disbanding of Parliament.
It is clear that one of Harper’s basic strategies is to marginalize Parliament and concentrate all power in his hands. For him Parliament is little more than as a focus group to try out new attack strategies under the cover of Parliamentary privilege. To this end, Harper and the Con’s have developed and implement a propaganda machine the likes of which have not been seen in Western democracies in recent times.
Although we have had a number of elections in close order and another would be painful, in the long run, the sooner we get rid of Harper and his Con’s the better for all Canadians and our way of life.
Lloyd MacIlquham
04 May, 2009
- “Just Watch Me”
submitted, 4 May ’09, 7:15am (PDT) in response to the Times article about whether Ignatieff will b able to make the transition from intellectual to politician.
From The Times, May 4, 2009, 'The Avenue of Mulberries - Combining the life of the mind with politics is difficult'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6216204.ece?Submitted=true
In the words of another outstanding Canadian intellect and politician , “Just watch me”.
Lloyd MacIlquham
From The Times, May 4, 2009, 'The Avenue of Mulberries - Combining the life of the mind with politics is difficult'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6216204.ece?Submitted=true
In the words of another outstanding Canadian intellect and politician , “Just watch me”.
Lloyd MacIlquham
02 May, 2009
- In Ontario: Conservatives rise 8% and NDP at 1% - Am I reading this Right!
Submitted 2 May’09
Comment on: Ignatieff takes hit for tax remarks
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/627872
In Ontario: Conservatives rise 8% and NDP at 1%. At first blush I’d say there is something wrong with the polling and I would be very hesitant to rely on it. Perhaps it is that one time out 20 – The Star and La Presse might ask Nanos how many polls Nanos Research done lately. To me this is significant and I think that this should have been commented on in the article and an explanation given.
However, if true, it seems the Liberals are not out of the wood in Ontario. It is not likely that the NDP would get 1% of the vote in Ontario if there were and election. It is also hard to see people turning away from the Con’s to the NDP. So, an NDP rise, which would be at least 10% - 15% and inevitable, would represent a significant decrease for the Liberals, even to the extent of putting them far behind the Con’s and comparable to Oct.’08, 34%, from the current poll’s 43%. However, the Green seem to be fairly solid at around 4 – 8% and would likely only give 2 – 3% to the NDP.
Lloyd MacIlquham
Comment on: Ignatieff takes hit for tax remarks
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/627872
In Ontario: Conservatives rise 8% and NDP at 1%. At first blush I’d say there is something wrong with the polling and I would be very hesitant to rely on it. Perhaps it is that one time out 20 – The Star and La Presse might ask Nanos how many polls Nanos Research done lately. To me this is significant and I think that this should have been commented on in the article and an explanation given.
However, if true, it seems the Liberals are not out of the wood in Ontario. It is not likely that the NDP would get 1% of the vote in Ontario if there were and election. It is also hard to see people turning away from the Con’s to the NDP. So, an NDP rise, which would be at least 10% - 15% and inevitable, would represent a significant decrease for the Liberals, even to the extent of putting them far behind the Con’s and comparable to Oct.’08, 34%, from the current poll’s 43%. However, the Green seem to be fairly solid at around 4 – 8% and would likely only give 2 – 3% to the NDP.
Lloyd MacIlquham
01 May, 2009
- ave atque vale, Stéphane
Catullus
Latin text
1 Multās per gentēs et multa per aequora vectus
2 adveniō hās miserās, frāter, ad īnferiās,
3 ut tē postrēmō dōnārem mūnere mortis
4 et mūtam nēquīquam alloquerer cinerem.
5 quandoquidem fortūna mihī tētē abstulit ipsum.
6 heu miser indignē frāter adēmpte mihi,
7 nunc tamen intereā haec, prīscō quae mōre parentum
8 trādita sunt trīstī mūnere ad īnferiās,
9 accipe frāternō multum mānantia flētū,
10 atque in perpetuum, frāter, avē atque valē.
Latin text
1 Multās per gentēs et multa per aequora vectus
2 adveniō hās miserās, frāter, ad īnferiās,
3 ut tē postrēmō dōnārem mūnere mortis
4 et mūtam nēquīquam alloquerer cinerem.
5 quandoquidem fortūna mihī tētē abstulit ipsum.
6 heu miser indignē frāter adēmpte mihi,
7 nunc tamen intereā haec, prīscō quae mōre parentum
8 trādita sunt trīstī mūnere ad īnferiās,
9 accipe frāternō multum mānantia flētū,
10 atque in perpetuum, frāter, avē atque valē.
20 April, 2009
- Ignatieff’s Stance on Taxes
Coment on TS, "Bracing honesty or a `gotcha' moment?",
Apr 20, 2009 04:30 AM
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/620467
For Harper and the Con’s to attack Ignatieff on this is sheer partisan politics, dishonest and hurtful to the future of our country – just like his “steady as she goes” approach in the lest election.
Deficit means that we are spending more than we are taking in. We can only do that by borrowing the money. This borrowed money must be paid back – anyone who has figured a way around this, legally anyway, let me know. Either we pay it back sooner or we pay it back later – and if it is later, of course, we must pay much more. If we pay it sooner the money either comes from increased revenues based on current tax regime and government spending or we increase the taxes and/or cut out government spending. If we pay it back later then the “we” refers, actually, not to us personally but future generations i.e. our children. Harper and the Con’s by making the huge ideological tax cuts prior to admitting we were entering into a recession increases the likelihood that taxes, e.g. the hated GST, be increased again.
These are the realities and exactly what Ignatieff is talking about.
Lloyd MacIlquham
Apr 20, 2009 04:30 AM
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/620467
For Harper and the Con’s to attack Ignatieff on this is sheer partisan politics, dishonest and hurtful to the future of our country – just like his “steady as she goes” approach in the lest election.
Deficit means that we are spending more than we are taking in. We can only do that by borrowing the money. This borrowed money must be paid back – anyone who has figured a way around this, legally anyway, let me know. Either we pay it back sooner or we pay it back later – and if it is later, of course, we must pay much more. If we pay it sooner the money either comes from increased revenues based on current tax regime and government spending or we increase the taxes and/or cut out government spending. If we pay it back later then the “we” refers, actually, not to us personally but future generations i.e. our children. Harper and the Con’s by making the huge ideological tax cuts prior to admitting we were entering into a recession increases the likelihood that taxes, e.g. the hated GST, be increased again.
These are the realities and exactly what Ignatieff is talking about.
Lloyd MacIlquham
25 March, 2009
- Harper and the Con’s suppressing free speech – tell me something I don’t know.
Commentary on the Harper Government banning British MP George Galloway from entering Canada.
Perhaps Harper is afraid the Galloway will come into Canada and start passing our humanitarian aid to members of the Oppositions Parties. After all, he did try to have financial assistance by the government banned and they haven’t even been declared terrorist organizations – but lets wait and see.
Lloyd MacIlquham
Perhaps Harper is afraid the Galloway will come into Canada and start passing our humanitarian aid to members of the Oppositions Parties. After all, he did try to have financial assistance by the government banned and they haven’t even been declared terrorist organizations – but lets wait and see.
Lloyd MacIlquham
23 March, 2009
- let the trial being - Using ‘Gay Rights’ as an example of the evils that will befall our society and covert Xenophobia won’t make it.
Comment on "First decriminalization, then plural marriages", Tom Flanagan, 23 mar.'09, G&M
“http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090320.wcopoly23/BNStory/specialComment/home
What Tom Flanagan seems to be criticizing is the Canadian Courts’, especially the Supreme Court of Canada, clarification of our basic human rights as enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights. In other words it is really our Charter of Rights and its application by our Courts in protecting our basic human rights, and religious freedom is a basic, fundamental human right, and our Supreme Court of Canada, that he is attacking.
This has been one of the big concerns about Harper and the Con’s and their extreme right wing ideology, and probably we are quite fortunate that they do not have a majority. Given Tom has been so closely connected to Harper and the Con’s in the past, at least, this attack on our Charter of Rights is very predictable and perhaps being done to “test the waters” so to speak.
Section 15(1) of the Charter states, in part: “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on … religion…”. Sounds good to me.
Generally the Canadian Courts enforce, as far as I can see, our laws against bigamy, and polygamy is just an example. From what I have read and heard in the media, this case certainly raises the issues of the right to practice one’s religion and religious beliefs.
If the application of our laws against bigamy, in the case at hand, infringes s.15(1) of the Charter, then by a proper interpretation of Section 2 of the Charter it is up to the Government of Canada to prove that this infringement, in the particular case at hand, is “demonstrably justified”. So, let the trial begin. To me using ‘Gay Rights’ as an example of the evils that will befall our society and covert Xenophobia won’t make it.
Lloyd MacIlquham
“http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090320.wcopoly23/BNStory/specialComment/home
What Tom Flanagan seems to be criticizing is the Canadian Courts’, especially the Supreme Court of Canada, clarification of our basic human rights as enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights. In other words it is really our Charter of Rights and its application by our Courts in protecting our basic human rights, and religious freedom is a basic, fundamental human right, and our Supreme Court of Canada, that he is attacking.
This has been one of the big concerns about Harper and the Con’s and their extreme right wing ideology, and probably we are quite fortunate that they do not have a majority. Given Tom has been so closely connected to Harper and the Con’s in the past, at least, this attack on our Charter of Rights is very predictable and perhaps being done to “test the waters” so to speak.
Section 15(1) of the Charter states, in part: “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on … religion…”. Sounds good to me.
Generally the Canadian Courts enforce, as far as I can see, our laws against bigamy, and polygamy is just an example. From what I have read and heard in the media, this case certainly raises the issues of the right to practice one’s religion and religious beliefs.
If the application of our laws against bigamy, in the case at hand, infringes s.15(1) of the Charter, then by a proper interpretation of Section 2 of the Charter it is up to the Government of Canada to prove that this infringement, in the particular case at hand, is “demonstrably justified”. So, let the trial begin. To me using ‘Gay Rights’ as an example of the evils that will befall our society and covert Xenophobia won’t make it.
Lloyd MacIlquham
21 March, 2009
- Harper and the Con’s To Be Made Accountable – That’s a Good Thing
Comment on T. Star, “Public at tipping point on bailouts”, http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/606056#Comments
Just think, the people of Canada demanding that Harper act in an open, fair and transparent fashion, helping those that need help and protecting those that need protection. Sounds good to me.
It also sounds exactly like what Ignatieff has been demanding and the whole purpose of the periodic reviews that the Liberals forced Harper and the Con’s to adopt. As Ignatieff puts it Harper is ‘on probation’ and that's a good thing.
Lloyd MacIlquham
Just think, the people of Canada demanding that Harper act in an open, fair and transparent fashion, helping those that need help and protecting those that need protection. Sounds good to me.
It also sounds exactly like what Ignatieff has been demanding and the whole purpose of the periodic reviews that the Liberals forced Harper and the Con’s to adopt. As Ignatieff puts it Harper is ‘on probation’ and that's a good thing.
Lloyd MacIlquham
17 March, 2009
- Mister Science Minister, Do the Right Thing and Resign:
Comment on the G&M article: Minister won't confirm belief in evolution
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090317.wgoodyear16/BNStory/National/home
It is in the highest scientific tradition to state that you do not accept a theory as “scientific fact” and to debate it – just ask Albert Einstein. But to refuse to even discuss it on religious grounds drags us back to the dark ages where they prosecuted Galileo as a heretic for suggesting that the Sun not the Earth was the center of the Universe.
The separation of religion and the state is vital to our society, its development and our basic freedoms. For Harper to put in place a Science Minister that refuses to even comment on, on a scientific level that is, any generally established scientific theory based on religious beliefs is not only indicative of an extreme right wing ideology but outright dangerous.
There is nothing wrong with having strong religious beliefs, of course, but when they pose the real possibility of interfering with the proper execution of his job, and in the case at hand I think the indications are that there is, then he should do the right thing and resign.
Lloyd MacIlquham
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090317.wgoodyear16/BNStory/National/home
It is in the highest scientific tradition to state that you do not accept a theory as “scientific fact” and to debate it – just ask Albert Einstein. But to refuse to even discuss it on religious grounds drags us back to the dark ages where they prosecuted Galileo as a heretic for suggesting that the Sun not the Earth was the center of the Universe.
The separation of religion and the state is vital to our society, its development and our basic freedoms. For Harper to put in place a Science Minister that refuses to even comment on, on a scientific level that is, any generally established scientific theory based on religious beliefs is not only indicative of an extreme right wing ideology but outright dangerous.
There is nothing wrong with having strong religious beliefs, of course, but when they pose the real possibility of interfering with the proper execution of his job, and in the case at hand I think the indications are that there is, then he should do the right thing and resign.
Lloyd MacIlquham
15 March, 2009
- When You’re Right – You’re Right!
Comment on:
“Carney hedges economic rebound prediction”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090314.wg20wrestle0314/BNStory/Business/home
Reading this article one might think that Flaherty is the main driving force in the global economic recovery. Flaherty’s statements are little more than a ‘cheap shot’ for the purpose of grandstanding. There is nothing constructive or informative about it.
Listening to Flaherty, and Harper, one gets the impression that the Canadian Banks being in such good shape is all their doing. Harper and Flaherty, of course, had nothing to do with it. They inherited it from the good management of previous governments, like they did the very healthy Federal Fiscal status. In fact, the laissez-faire, hands off, ‘steady-as-she-goes’ reduction in government interference with the economy, approach, so much a part of Harper’s right wing agenda, overt or covert, is generally accepted as at the foundation of the finacial crises and is one of the main thrusts of the Ecomonic G-20 meeting. Where’s Flaherty’s statement on increasing international regulation of financial institutions.
One need only read the G&M article “Canada's place is on the B list”, 13 Mar.’09, to get a real idea of how Flaherty, Harper and the Con’s are viewed on the Int’l Financial stage as far as them being “movers and shakers”. The British PM doesn’t even consider Flaherty and Harper as important enough for Canada to ‘merit “intensive diplomatic lobbying and engagement” ahead of the [London summit” on April 2]’. The British PM put Flaherty, Harper and the Con government in the same sphere of influence as such international economic policy leaders as: Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico and Argentina. To Gordon Brown: when you’re right – you’re right!
Lloyd MacIlquham
“Carney hedges economic rebound prediction”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090314.wg20wrestle0314/BNStory/Business/home
Reading this article one might think that Flaherty is the main driving force in the global economic recovery. Flaherty’s statements are little more than a ‘cheap shot’ for the purpose of grandstanding. There is nothing constructive or informative about it.
Listening to Flaherty, and Harper, one gets the impression that the Canadian Banks being in such good shape is all their doing. Harper and Flaherty, of course, had nothing to do with it. They inherited it from the good management of previous governments, like they did the very healthy Federal Fiscal status. In fact, the laissez-faire, hands off, ‘steady-as-she-goes’ reduction in government interference with the economy, approach, so much a part of Harper’s right wing agenda, overt or covert, is generally accepted as at the foundation of the finacial crises and is one of the main thrusts of the Ecomonic G-20 meeting. Where’s Flaherty’s statement on increasing international regulation of financial institutions.
One need only read the G&M article “Canada's place is on the B list”, 13 Mar.’09, to get a real idea of how Flaherty, Harper and the Con’s are viewed on the Int’l Financial stage as far as them being “movers and shakers”. The British PM doesn’t even consider Flaherty and Harper as important enough for Canada to ‘merit “intensive diplomatic lobbying and engagement” ahead of the [London summit” on April 2]’. The British PM put Flaherty, Harper and the Con government in the same sphere of influence as such international economic policy leaders as: Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico and Argentina. To Gordon Brown: when you’re right – you’re right!
Lloyd MacIlquham
05 March, 2009
- Access to Information is Vital to an Open, Free and Tolerant Society
submitted to:
TS, 5 Mar.'09, "Watchdog seeking to lift veil on cabinet", Bruce Campion-Smith
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/596832#Comments
Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.
Access to information affords the stuff whereby the individual may forge both sword and shield to uphold human rights, without which no amount legislation can guaranty these rights and so, should therefore stand on the same footing.
TS, 5 Mar.'09, "Watchdog seeking to lift veil on cabinet", Bruce Campion-Smith
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/596832#Comments
Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.
Access to information affords the stuff whereby the individual may forge both sword and shield to uphold human rights, without which no amount legislation can guaranty these rights and so, should therefore stand on the same footing.
04 March, 2009
- Get Ready for More of the Harper attack ads the likes of which have not been seen in Western democracies in Recent Years
Comment post to:
Liberals preparing for a fight if Tories run anti-Ignatieff attack ads
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090304.wignatieff04/BNStory/politics/home
As far as comparing someone’s current opinions with what they have expressed in the past might I quote that modern day philosopher-king Mohammad Ali:
“A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life.”
That Harper and the Con’s would be monitoring what Michael Ignatieff says now and comparing it what he has said throughout his illustrious career in order to fabricate attack adds is beyond belief. Well, not really beyond belief when you consider that Harper and the Con’s have subjected the Canadian people to propaganda campaigns the likes of which has not been seen in Western democracies in recent times. Hopefully all Canadians will let Harper know in no uncertain terms that we don’t go for his type of rules and government.
Lloyd MacIlquham
Liberals preparing for a fight if Tories run anti-Ignatieff attack ads
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090304.wignatieff04/BNStory/politics/home
As far as comparing someone’s current opinions with what they have expressed in the past might I quote that modern day philosopher-king Mohammad Ali:
“A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life.”
That Harper and the Con’s would be monitoring what Michael Ignatieff says now and comparing it what he has said throughout his illustrious career in order to fabricate attack adds is beyond belief. Well, not really beyond belief when you consider that Harper and the Con’s have subjected the Canadian people to propaganda campaigns the likes of which has not been seen in Western democracies in recent times. Hopefully all Canadians will let Harper know in no uncertain terms that we don’t go for his type of rules and government.
Lloyd MacIlquham
01 March, 2009
- Harper Filling the Conservative Leadership Vacuum in North America
I submitted the following Comment to:
WSJ, ‘Stephen Harper A Resolute Ally in the War on Terror’, 28 Feb.’09
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123578347494598289.html
Being Canadian, the most important part of your article is your statement ” There is a vacuum in conservative leadership in North America and on the world stage, and Mr. Harper is stepping into it”.
I have no doubt that Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party’s overall objectives are just that. However, for many Canadians, and I suggest a majority of at least 63% (those that voted against him being Prime Minister in the last election), this is not a good thing. Harper was obviously a puppet to President G.W. Bush while he was in office and is a George wanna-be now. One need only consider Harper’s statements just prior to the Obama visit to Canada regarding the Harper and Conservative government’s position on Global Warming (and I will let your readers do the research) – essentially it was a Mea Culpa blaming G.W. Bush, in effect saying (although for clarity not actually saying) “the devil made me do it”.
Also, I take exception and I have no doubt there are many Canadians that are of similar view, to your statement “…this prime minister and his Conservative Party have restored Canada's international prestige by increasing military funding and tenaciously supporting Canada's dangerous NATO mission in the Afghan province of Kandahar”. Canada has had for many years and especially since Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson considerable international prestige as peacekeepers and international mediators (and again, I will let your readers do the research). We have been very proud of this. Increasing military spending may be the American way but not the Canadian way and hopefuly it never will be.
Lloyd MacIlquham, Nanaimo, BC
WSJ, ‘Stephen Harper A Resolute Ally in the War on Terror’, 28 Feb.’09
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123578347494598289.html
Being Canadian, the most important part of your article is your statement ” There is a vacuum in conservative leadership in North America and on the world stage, and Mr. Harper is stepping into it”.
I have no doubt that Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party’s overall objectives are just that. However, for many Canadians, and I suggest a majority of at least 63% (those that voted against him being Prime Minister in the last election), this is not a good thing. Harper was obviously a puppet to President G.W. Bush while he was in office and is a George wanna-be now. One need only consider Harper’s statements just prior to the Obama visit to Canada regarding the Harper and Conservative government’s position on Global Warming (and I will let your readers do the research) – essentially it was a Mea Culpa blaming G.W. Bush, in effect saying (although for clarity not actually saying) “the devil made me do it”.
Also, I take exception and I have no doubt there are many Canadians that are of similar view, to your statement “…this prime minister and his Conservative Party have restored Canada's international prestige by increasing military funding and tenaciously supporting Canada's dangerous NATO mission in the Afghan province of Kandahar”. Canada has had for many years and especially since Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson considerable international prestige as peacekeepers and international mediators (and again, I will let your readers do the research). We have been very proud of this. Increasing military spending may be the American way but not the Canadian way and hopefuly it never will be.
Lloyd MacIlquham, Nanaimo, BC
28 February, 2009
The Stephen Harper Mea Culpa on his lack of Action on Global Warming “The devil made me do it”
My comments posted to:
http://policywiki.theglobeandmail.com/tiki-index.php?page=Carbon+Capture+Briefing+Note
Canada can not couple its efforts to reduce GHG emission to the United States, whether with respect to CCS technology or otherwise. For one, the sources of GHG are different and these differences have a direct impact on the feasibility of such technologies as CCS. This issue was discussed in the Toronto Star article, “Carbon capture no silver bullet for tar sands”, 27 Feb.’09, Gerald Butts, president and CEO of WWF Canada – vis.: “Specifically, the science tells us that it may be technically feasible (though exceedingly expensive) to capture 90 per cent of the carbon emitted by a new coal-fired generator, but just 10 per cent of the greenhouse gases associated with oil from tar sands.”
For another reason, of course, you get statements like Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s saying that Canada’s hand’s had been tied regarding taking action to reduce GHG’s because of President’ Bush’s position. In other words, Harper’s Mea Culpa on failure to properly address the GW was essentially “The devil made me do it!”.
Clearly, we as Canadians can not allow this to happen. By coupling our efforts we will in effect abdicate our responsibility to clean up our own act. It is fallacy to think that if coupled we will be able to tell the US how to do things or we will be able to implement any policies that would address our specific problems unless it is a benefit to the Americans.
Also, President G.W. Brush’s position was, it seems to me, to be: don’t worry science will save us. It may be that somewhere down the road there may be some kind of scientific breakthrough or development that will save the world from global warming and/or its effects. But, given the real, and present, potential for cataclysmic disaster worldwide, certainly we must take a course of action that we, at this point in time, know will have a real and meaningful impact.
We simply cannot afford to put all our hopes in the possibility of future scientific developments. That is not to say that we should not, at the same time, pursue this future scientific salvation and do so rigorously. But, to put all our hopes in this is, to me, to say the least, not prudent. CCS is an attractive idea suggesting that we may continue our activities “steady as she goes” and avoid having to take the harsh steps that will, in fact, have a meaningful reduction on GHG’s. However, if we place all our hopes on this and this idea does not come to fruition, we’re doomed.
On the other hand, with the economic downturn and the governments looking to stimulate the economy it is an excellent time to commence such projects. After all, we cannot expect that everyone who loses their job can transfer to bridge building or other infrastructure projects. Also, as suggested, it is an opportunity to put Canada at the forefront of a developing technology. It seems to me that much greater efforts should be made into development of alternative energy motivated automobiles. Certainly coming up with an economically feasible car that using electricity, hydrogen, or the like, would have a much greater impact on our economy, our environment and our position on the international stage regarding leading edge science and technology. So, go ahead and put a few million into CCS research. But, put a few billion or even tens of billions into alternative energy automobiles, and other such areas.
Lloyd MacIlquham
http://policywiki.theglobeandmail.com/tiki-index.php?page=Carbon+Capture+Briefing+Note
Canada can not couple its efforts to reduce GHG emission to the United States, whether with respect to CCS technology or otherwise. For one, the sources of GHG are different and these differences have a direct impact on the feasibility of such technologies as CCS. This issue was discussed in the Toronto Star article, “Carbon capture no silver bullet for tar sands”, 27 Feb.’09, Gerald Butts, president and CEO of WWF Canada – vis.: “Specifically, the science tells us that it may be technically feasible (though exceedingly expensive) to capture 90 per cent of the carbon emitted by a new coal-fired generator, but just 10 per cent of the greenhouse gases associated with oil from tar sands.”
For another reason, of course, you get statements like Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s saying that Canada’s hand’s had been tied regarding taking action to reduce GHG’s because of President’ Bush’s position. In other words, Harper’s Mea Culpa on failure to properly address the GW was essentially “The devil made me do it!”.
Clearly, we as Canadians can not allow this to happen. By coupling our efforts we will in effect abdicate our responsibility to clean up our own act. It is fallacy to think that if coupled we will be able to tell the US how to do things or we will be able to implement any policies that would address our specific problems unless it is a benefit to the Americans.
Also, President G.W. Brush’s position was, it seems to me, to be: don’t worry science will save us. It may be that somewhere down the road there may be some kind of scientific breakthrough or development that will save the world from global warming and/or its effects. But, given the real, and present, potential for cataclysmic disaster worldwide, certainly we must take a course of action that we, at this point in time, know will have a real and meaningful impact.
We simply cannot afford to put all our hopes in the possibility of future scientific developments. That is not to say that we should not, at the same time, pursue this future scientific salvation and do so rigorously. But, to put all our hopes in this is, to me, to say the least, not prudent. CCS is an attractive idea suggesting that we may continue our activities “steady as she goes” and avoid having to take the harsh steps that will, in fact, have a meaningful reduction on GHG’s. However, if we place all our hopes on this and this idea does not come to fruition, we’re doomed.
On the other hand, with the economic downturn and the governments looking to stimulate the economy it is an excellent time to commence such projects. After all, we cannot expect that everyone who loses their job can transfer to bridge building or other infrastructure projects. Also, as suggested, it is an opportunity to put Canada at the forefront of a developing technology. It seems to me that much greater efforts should be made into development of alternative energy motivated automobiles. Certainly coming up with an economically feasible car that using electricity, hydrogen, or the like, would have a much greater impact on our economy, our environment and our position on the international stage regarding leading edge science and technology. So, go ahead and put a few million into CCS research. But, put a few billion or even tens of billions into alternative energy automobiles, and other such areas.
Lloyd MacIlquham
14 February, 2009
- Harper appealing to the middle of the road, that would be an Extreme Makeover.
Comments on TS “Politicians mine middle class for success”, 14 Feb.’09, Bruce Campion-Smith, http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/587562
Middle class also means middle of the road in Canadian politics, it seems to me.
For Harper to appeal to the middle class either Harper will have to move to the center from the extreme right – not bloody likely, no matter how many makeovers, extreme or otherwise.
Or the middle will have to move to the extreme right – God help us.
It appears that Harper’s plan is to appear more middle of the road in order to get the middle class vote and retain power but to surely and steadily pull all Canadians and Canadian society more and more to the extreme right politically (compare Harper’s speech in Fredericton at the beginning of the last election – 13 Sep.’08).
Middle class also means middle of the road in Canadian politics, it seems to me.
For Harper to appeal to the middle class either Harper will have to move to the center from the extreme right – not bloody likely, no matter how many makeovers, extreme or otherwise.
Or the middle will have to move to the extreme right – God help us.
It appears that Harper’s plan is to appear more middle of the road in order to get the middle class vote and retain power but to surely and steadily pull all Canadians and Canadian society more and more to the extreme right politically (compare Harper’s speech in Fredericton at the beginning of the last election – 13 Sep.’08).
12 February, 2009
- It is the people that suffer from recession and it is the people that must take action.
[Comments on the TS article
Leaders too willing to sit on sidelines, James Travers, Feb 12, 2009 04:30 AM,
http://www.thestar.com/Canada/Columnist/article/586348]
It is we the people of Canada that must take action to pull ourselves out of economic ruin. It does no good to turn to the government and expect them to do the things that will, magically, make everything all right. It doesn’t matter what the government does, if all of us, individually, and as a nation, are not willing to take the necessary action.
Simply passing off huge debt to future generations, as attractive and simple a concept as it is, is not the solution and represents an abdication of responsibility. Someone once explained to me that the people in Canada and United States would never stand for another Depression. However, this is apparently not true.
A look at Obama’s rhetoric is very much addressing this issue and if he is able to change people’s attitudes then they may have some hope. Canadians must take charge and responsibility for their own future.
Lloyd MacIlquham
Leaders too willing to sit on sidelines, James Travers, Feb 12, 2009 04:30 AM,
http://www.thestar.com/Canada/Columnist/article/586348]
It is we the people of Canada that must take action to pull ourselves out of economic ruin. It does no good to turn to the government and expect them to do the things that will, magically, make everything all right. It doesn’t matter what the government does, if all of us, individually, and as a nation, are not willing to take the necessary action.
Simply passing off huge debt to future generations, as attractive and simple a concept as it is, is not the solution and represents an abdication of responsibility. Someone once explained to me that the people in Canada and United States would never stand for another Depression. However, this is apparently not true.
A look at Obama’s rhetoric is very much addressing this issue and if he is able to change people’s attitudes then they may have some hope. Canadians must take charge and responsibility for their own future.
Lloyd MacIlquham
08 February, 2009
- There should be a Public Inquiry into Harper bringing the Libel suit against the Liberal Party
The Harper libel lawsuit is framed as a private matter as far as the courts are concerned. However, it is very serious matter as far as the people of Canada are concerned. Although the court has dismissed the case it is far too important politically for the people of Canada to dismiss. The suggestions seem to be that Harper brought this case for political reasons. My reading of this article is that Prof. Magnet suggests that it may be the case that it was brought to “push the problem down the line in time”. Down the line in time might be “after the next election”, which when reviewing the chronology of the case makes one wonder.
Also, apparently, an opinion of University of Toronto professor Peter Russell, was filed as expert opinion by the Liberal Party in the related injunction case in which he states "…The prime minister's legal actions are an attempt to use the courts to interfere with the official opposition's freedom of political expression and thereby give his party an advantage over his principal political opponents …". (29 Aug.’08, CTV article).
****************
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080829/Harper_Cadman_080828
Harper cross-examined in Cadman tape libel case
Updated Fri. Aug. 29 2008 6:13 PM ET
Tim Naumetz , The Canadian Press
****************
Another political dimension of the case is the sheer cost of defending the case and the amount of the award. Given the Liberal Party’s dire financial straights at the time and the impending election, one might wonder if this were also a factor in bringing the law suit. In Tom Flanagan’s G&M article of 28 Aug.’08, he states, “…the Conservatives would appear to have a viable long-term strategy: force the Liberals to exhaust their limited resources in repeated battles…”. I asked Mr. Flanagan directly if he thought the Cadman libel law suit were an application of this strategy. His answer was “…I can't believe he would sue simply for that reason.” I guess after reading what Prof Magnet and Prof Russell have to say I can’t say I think he sued “simply for that reason” either. This is re-inforced, of course, when one looks at the Economic update presented to Parliament in November by Harper and the Con’s and its undermining of finances to the opposition parties.
For the Prime Minister of our country surely is not simply a question of propriety but the appearance of propriety. I think there should be a public inquiry to resolve this matter once and for all.
Lloyd MacIlquham
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080828.wcoelection0828/BNStory/specialComment/
The Grits won't die - they'll just fade away
And if they're not careful, they could end up in a financial pit
· Article
· Comments ( 169)
·
TOM FLANAGAN
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
August 28, 2008 at 9:11 AM EST
Carthago delenda est.
- Cato the Elder
For the complete Tom Flanagan question and answer please go to: http://cicblog.com/comments.html
(The articles referred to above have not been reproduced due to copyright considerations)
Lloyd MacIlquham (Nanaimo, B.C.): Hi Mr. Flanagan. In your G&M article article, "The Grits won't die - they'll just fade away," Aug. 28, 2008, you conclude: "Against this backdrop, the Conservatives would appear to have a viable long-term strategy: force the Liberals to exhaust their limited resources in repeated battles." In your opinion, what is the likelihood that Harper's $3.5 million lawsuit against the Liberals is an application of this long-term strategy, both with respect to legal fees required to be expended and actual awards; and, to what extent, if any, does it play a part?
Tom Flanagan: Please bear in mind that I'm not working for Mr. Harper any longer, so when I write I am just expressing my own views. Forcing the Liberals into a war of attrition is my own view of strategy, not that of anyone else. Mr. Harper's lawsuit against the Liberals does indeed impose some financial burdens on that party (as it does on the Conservative Party, which also has large legal fees to handle). But knowing Mr. Harper as I do, I can't believe he would sue simply for that reason. As when Peter Lougheed successfully sued the CBC, it's because the injured party genuinely feels he's been defamed.
Also, apparently, an opinion of University of Toronto professor Peter Russell, was filed as expert opinion by the Liberal Party in the related injunction case in which he states "…The prime minister's legal actions are an attempt to use the courts to interfere with the official opposition's freedom of political expression and thereby give his party an advantage over his principal political opponents …". (29 Aug.’08, CTV article).
****************
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080829/Harper_Cadman_080828
Harper cross-examined in Cadman tape libel case
Updated Fri. Aug. 29 2008 6:13 PM ET
Tim Naumetz , The Canadian Press
****************
Another political dimension of the case is the sheer cost of defending the case and the amount of the award. Given the Liberal Party’s dire financial straights at the time and the impending election, one might wonder if this were also a factor in bringing the law suit. In Tom Flanagan’s G&M article of 28 Aug.’08, he states, “…the Conservatives would appear to have a viable long-term strategy: force the Liberals to exhaust their limited resources in repeated battles…”. I asked Mr. Flanagan directly if he thought the Cadman libel law suit were an application of this strategy. His answer was “…I can't believe he would sue simply for that reason.” I guess after reading what Prof Magnet and Prof Russell have to say I can’t say I think he sued “simply for that reason” either. This is re-inforced, of course, when one looks at the Economic update presented to Parliament in November by Harper and the Con’s and its undermining of finances to the opposition parties.
For the Prime Minister of our country surely is not simply a question of propriety but the appearance of propriety. I think there should be a public inquiry to resolve this matter once and for all.
Lloyd MacIlquham
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080828.wcoelection0828/BNStory/specialComment/
The Grits won't die - they'll just fade away
And if they're not careful, they could end up in a financial pit
· Article
· Comments ( 169)
·
TOM FLANAGAN
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
August 28, 2008 at 9:11 AM EST
Carthago delenda est.
- Cato the Elder
For the complete Tom Flanagan question and answer please go to: http://cicblog.com/comments.html
(The articles referred to above have not been reproduced due to copyright considerations)
Lloyd MacIlquham (Nanaimo, B.C.): Hi Mr. Flanagan. In your G&M article article, "The Grits won't die - they'll just fade away," Aug. 28, 2008, you conclude: "Against this backdrop, the Conservatives would appear to have a viable long-term strategy: force the Liberals to exhaust their limited resources in repeated battles." In your opinion, what is the likelihood that Harper's $3.5 million lawsuit against the Liberals is an application of this long-term strategy, both with respect to legal fees required to be expended and actual awards; and, to what extent, if any, does it play a part?
Tom Flanagan: Please bear in mind that I'm not working for Mr. Harper any longer, so when I write I am just expressing my own views. Forcing the Liberals into a war of attrition is my own view of strategy, not that of anyone else. Mr. Harper's lawsuit against the Liberals does indeed impose some financial burdens on that party (as it does on the Conservative Party, which also has large legal fees to handle). But knowing Mr. Harper as I do, I can't believe he would sue simply for that reason. As when Peter Lougheed successfully sued the CBC, it's because the injured party genuinely feels he's been defamed.
07 February, 2009
- Harper and the Con’s Insidious Neo-Conservative Agenda
My Comment, posted 7 Feb.’09, to “Job losses won't alter stimulus plan, Harper says“
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090206.wjobs07/BNStory/Business/home:
These job loses are extreme, unanticipated and the worst in recorded in recorded history – three time higher than the 40,000 expected; 71,000 in Ontario alone. What is Harper’s response “not blown off tract every time there is some bad news”. If this is your ‘run-of-the-mill’ bad news that does not call for special consideration, then God help us.
That Harper would not do anything to adjust to this new and drastic acceleration in economic worsening is indicative of someone who actions are motivated by something other than protecting Canadian against this economic disaster. He took the same position during the election i.e. ‘steady as she goes’ and his economic update in November was, of course, ridiculously devoid of any action to address this extreme situation. The only way he would do anything was by the Opposition Parties threatening to throw him out of office – Impeachment Canadian style. Fortunately Ignatieff and the Liberals forced Harper and the Cons to include the periodic review of their actions on the economy.
It is becoming clearer and clearer that the Harper and the Con’s real agenda may very well be to take advantage of a disaster to implement their extreme right wing extremist agenda. We can only wait to see how bad things must get before Harper feels it is time to act. Unfortunately, it will likely be far too later to do anything about our current situation, surprise, surprise, and the action he takes may by quite shocking to anyone who has grown accustom to our way of life.
Lloyd MacIlquham
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090206.wjobs07/BNStory/Business/home:
These job loses are extreme, unanticipated and the worst in recorded in recorded history – three time higher than the 40,000 expected; 71,000 in Ontario alone. What is Harper’s response “not blown off tract every time there is some bad news”. If this is your ‘run-of-the-mill’ bad news that does not call for special consideration, then God help us.
That Harper would not do anything to adjust to this new and drastic acceleration in economic worsening is indicative of someone who actions are motivated by something other than protecting Canadian against this economic disaster. He took the same position during the election i.e. ‘steady as she goes’ and his economic update in November was, of course, ridiculously devoid of any action to address this extreme situation. The only way he would do anything was by the Opposition Parties threatening to throw him out of office – Impeachment Canadian style. Fortunately Ignatieff and the Liberals forced Harper and the Cons to include the periodic review of their actions on the economy.
It is becoming clearer and clearer that the Harper and the Con’s real agenda may very well be to take advantage of a disaster to implement their extreme right wing extremist agenda. We can only wait to see how bad things must get before Harper feels it is time to act. Unfortunately, it will likely be far too later to do anything about our current situation, surprise, surprise, and the action he takes may by quite shocking to anyone who has grown accustom to our way of life.
Lloyd MacIlquham
01 February, 2009
- Duceppe Makes it Easier for Liberals
comment on: "Separatism is back at forefront, Duceppe tells party meeting", February 01, 2009, Karine Fortin
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/580512
So too Harper and the Conservatives have “moved away” from their right wing extremist political ideology to that of a more Liberal approach. So too Duceppe and the Block a few years ago moved away from their sovereignist position to that of “what’s best for Quebec” and now are moving back to a sovereignist position. They both do it for the same reason, to hold onto power. It is interesting to note that apparently Duceppe is not taking the position that separation from Canada is “what’s best for Quebec” – if he is it wasn’t reported in this article.
Whether one likes it or not the Block represent a very large percentage of the people of Quebec and no one has the right to disenfranchise them except the people who vote for them. Fortunately for Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals, Duceppe has just made it easier to do this. By Harper and the Con’s disenfranchising rhetoric in December Quebecers are likely to turn away from that party in the next Federal election. The trend in Quebec in the last few years has been away from separatists. I am not sure that a recession would change that. Duceppe is a smart politician and one can only wonder if he knows something others don’t. But, it appears he is deliberately distancing his party from the Liberals thus widening the gap and making it easier for people to vote Liberal in the next Federal election. Harper and the Con’s have developed the biggest propaganda machine experienced in any Western democracy in recent years and will, obviously, torque it up that the Block are separatists and they single handedly saved Canada.
However, the truly scary thought is that had it not been the Liberals receiving the support of Duceppe and the Block, as well as the NDP, in forcing the Conservatives to real action we would all be facing this economic tsunami without any action by our Federal government. Certainly in so doing Duceppe has done far more to keep Canada and nation together than Harper and the Con’s.
Lloyd MacIlquham
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/580512
So too Harper and the Conservatives have “moved away” from their right wing extremist political ideology to that of a more Liberal approach. So too Duceppe and the Block a few years ago moved away from their sovereignist position to that of “what’s best for Quebec” and now are moving back to a sovereignist position. They both do it for the same reason, to hold onto power. It is interesting to note that apparently Duceppe is not taking the position that separation from Canada is “what’s best for Quebec” – if he is it wasn’t reported in this article.
Whether one likes it or not the Block represent a very large percentage of the people of Quebec and no one has the right to disenfranchise them except the people who vote for them. Fortunately for Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals, Duceppe has just made it easier to do this. By Harper and the Con’s disenfranchising rhetoric in December Quebecers are likely to turn away from that party in the next Federal election. The trend in Quebec in the last few years has been away from separatists. I am not sure that a recession would change that. Duceppe is a smart politician and one can only wonder if he knows something others don’t. But, it appears he is deliberately distancing his party from the Liberals thus widening the gap and making it easier for people to vote Liberal in the next Federal election. Harper and the Con’s have developed the biggest propaganda machine experienced in any Western democracy in recent years and will, obviously, torque it up that the Block are separatists and they single handedly saved Canada.
However, the truly scary thought is that had it not been the Liberals receiving the support of Duceppe and the Block, as well as the NDP, in forcing the Conservatives to real action we would all be facing this economic tsunami without any action by our Federal government. Certainly in so doing Duceppe has done far more to keep Canada and nation together than Harper and the Con’s.
Lloyd MacIlquham
18 January, 2009
- Comment on: Kelly McParland: Ignatieff blows smoke on tax threat
- Comment on: Kelly McParland: Ignatieff blows smoke on tax threat
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/01/18/kelly-mcparland-ignatieff-is-blowing-smoke-on-tax-threat.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage
Hi Kelly
Michael Ignatieff’s statements are a question of context. I like your links to the articles you are referring but making links to one’s references regarding another’s statements doesn’t excuse one from accusing that person of saying a lemon’s and orange when he refers to both as fruit or even citrius fruit.
There is a huge difference between “broad based tax cuts” which reduce tax and infinitum as opposed to one to tax relieve explicitly designed to boost spending during economic hard times. One need only compare the Harper and Conservative reduction of the GST by 2% with England’s policy to reduce VAT (same as our GST) for one year to boost spending. These are very different types of tax reductions. The latter is obviously designed, by putting a one year limit on the reduction, precisely so that it doesn’t hobble future goverments and future generations. It should be pointed out that Harper and the Conservatives were very quick to equate their structural reduction in GST with the Englsih temporary reduction by completing ignoring this very important difference.
When Micheal Ignatieff says, "I think it’s going to be important to get stimulus into the Canadian economy fast, so we may be looking at tax cuts very quickly, tax cuts targeted at medium and low income, to boost their purchasing power fast",
You can hardly say that he is referring to the same thing as general “broad based tax cuts” that Harper and the Conservatives are referring to, that have no time limit, will diminish the Federal Government’s capacity, build in a structural deficit, lead to on going structural Federal deficits of the kind we saw with Mulroney and the PC in the early ‘90’s and force the next Liberal government to implement serious program spending cuts of the kind that Jean Chrétien was required to do and even general tax increases to have any hope of saving our children and preserving our nation. Harper's aim here appears to be implementing his right wing agenda, as opposed to truly helping Canadians through a very difficult time and this proposal is not much better than his economic update of November. It is no surprise that the Liberals are reacting this way. Not only is it not contradictory but it is very consistent.
I think all media reporters in Canada should take head of James Travers’ article in the Toronto Star of 10 Jan.’09 vis: “…in October, with the country facing the biggest economic crisis since the great depression, the smallest number of voters in memory went to the polls without knowing very much about the situation or how the next prime minister would respond. …”
In these times of economic severity it is vital that all reporters and newspapers make their best efforts to clarify the message of all politicians and political parties so as ensure that the general public is properly informed and not simply inundated with stories bias to promote one Party over another.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/01/18/kelly-mcparland-ignatieff-is-blowing-smoke-on-tax-threat.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage
Hi Kelly
Michael Ignatieff’s statements are a question of context. I like your links to the articles you are referring but making links to one’s references regarding another’s statements doesn’t excuse one from accusing that person of saying a lemon’s and orange when he refers to both as fruit or even citrius fruit.
There is a huge difference between “broad based tax cuts” which reduce tax and infinitum as opposed to one to tax relieve explicitly designed to boost spending during economic hard times. One need only compare the Harper and Conservative reduction of the GST by 2% with England’s policy to reduce VAT (same as our GST) for one year to boost spending. These are very different types of tax reductions. The latter is obviously designed, by putting a one year limit on the reduction, precisely so that it doesn’t hobble future goverments and future generations. It should be pointed out that Harper and the Conservatives were very quick to equate their structural reduction in GST with the Englsih temporary reduction by completing ignoring this very important difference.
When Micheal Ignatieff says, "I think it’s going to be important to get stimulus into the Canadian economy fast, so we may be looking at tax cuts very quickly, tax cuts targeted at medium and low income, to boost their purchasing power fast",
You can hardly say that he is referring to the same thing as general “broad based tax cuts” that Harper and the Conservatives are referring to, that have no time limit, will diminish the Federal Government’s capacity, build in a structural deficit, lead to on going structural Federal deficits of the kind we saw with Mulroney and the PC in the early ‘90’s and force the next Liberal government to implement serious program spending cuts of the kind that Jean Chrétien was required to do and even general tax increases to have any hope of saving our children and preserving our nation. Harper's aim here appears to be implementing his right wing agenda, as opposed to truly helping Canadians through a very difficult time and this proposal is not much better than his economic update of November. It is no surprise that the Liberals are reacting this way. Not only is it not contradictory but it is very consistent.
I think all media reporters in Canada should take head of James Travers’ article in the Toronto Star of 10 Jan.’09 vis: “…in October, with the country facing the biggest economic crisis since the great depression, the smallest number of voters in memory went to the polls without knowing very much about the situation or how the next prime minister would respond. …”
In these times of economic severity it is vital that all reporters and newspapers make their best efforts to clarify the message of all politicians and political parties so as ensure that the general public is properly informed and not simply inundated with stories bias to promote one Party over another.
15 January, 2009
- Layton, Show Your Sincerity and Tear up the Coalition Agreement and Pledge to Support to Liberals
Reply to: G&M: NDP 'unlikely' to support budget, favours coalition
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090114.wxopposition14/CommentStory/politics/home
When Jack Layton says that Harper and the Con’s can’t be trusted I believe he is quite sincere, and right of course.
………………………………………………
But if his motives were truly to rid Canada of this scourge, as opposed to simply grabbing power, then perhaps he could come out and say that for the sake of this great nation of ours he is willing to tear up the agreement, and his 6 cabinet posts, but pledge to the Liberals his and the NDP’s support if they were to form government, similar to what the Block has done.
………………………………………………
Michael Ignatieff is right in his position that the Block MP’s are not traitors to Canada but duly elected representatives of a very large and significant segment of Canadians who are being deliberately alienated and marginalized to the extend of being disenfranchised for the sake of the self-serving political expediency of Harper and the Con’s. This scare mongering is being achieved by the greatest propaganda machine Democratic countries have seen in recent history. This is a development that, I think, all Canadians should be very concerned about and take action to marginalize it as all right wing extremist philosophies should be in a tolerant, free, open modern democracy .
………………………………………………
Lloyd MacIlquham
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090114.wxopposition14/CommentStory/politics/home
When Jack Layton says that Harper and the Con’s can’t be trusted I believe he is quite sincere, and right of course.
………………………………………………
But if his motives were truly to rid Canada of this scourge, as opposed to simply grabbing power, then perhaps he could come out and say that for the sake of this great nation of ours he is willing to tear up the agreement, and his 6 cabinet posts, but pledge to the Liberals his and the NDP’s support if they were to form government, similar to what the Block has done.
………………………………………………
Michael Ignatieff is right in his position that the Block MP’s are not traitors to Canada but duly elected representatives of a very large and significant segment of Canadians who are being deliberately alienated and marginalized to the extend of being disenfranchised for the sake of the self-serving political expediency of Harper and the Con’s. This scare mongering is being achieved by the greatest propaganda machine Democratic countries have seen in recent history. This is a development that, I think, all Canadians should be very concerned about and take action to marginalize it as all right wing extremist philosophies should be in a tolerant, free, open modern democracy .
………………………………………………
Lloyd MacIlquham
10 January, 2009
- Media Social Responsibility to ‘Keep the Government Honest’
Comment on
'Seinfeld' election exposed media flaws'Seinfeld' election exposed media flaws
Jan 10, 2009 04:30 AM, James Travers
I think there is not doubt that the position taken by Harper and the Conservative Party regarding the economy during the last election, and since, has been unconscionable, both in hiding and obscuring the realities and in their exploiting their position of power and the economic crises for self-serving political advantage and to the exclusion of any significant help for Canadians.
It may very well be that had the media, during the election, set aside political partisanship and focusing on informing the public in an objective fashion that the Canadian people could have made a more “informed” decision. For example, one may ask what purpose did it serve for the Globe and Mail to come out near the end of the campaign to support Harper and the Conservatives.
This role of the media is vital especially when one considers that Harper and the Conservatives have set up one of the biggest propaganda machines that any Democratic country has experienced in recent times.
It does not suffice for the media to say that they are private concerns and so may do as they please. The media plays a very special role in any modern Democracy in “keeping the government honest”. In return, they hold a very special and exceptional position both in law and socially. One need only read the media replies to criticisms and restrictions on freedom to information to hear this argument and from the mouths of the media, when it suites them, of course. Biased reporting for partisan purposes is in reality a violation of this “social trust”.
What is the likelihood of the media changing? You tell me.
Lloyd MacIlquham
'Seinfeld' election exposed media flaws'Seinfeld' election exposed media flaws
Jan 10, 2009 04:30 AM, James Travers
I think there is not doubt that the position taken by Harper and the Conservative Party regarding the economy during the last election, and since, has been unconscionable, both in hiding and obscuring the realities and in their exploiting their position of power and the economic crises for self-serving political advantage and to the exclusion of any significant help for Canadians.
It may very well be that had the media, during the election, set aside political partisanship and focusing on informing the public in an objective fashion that the Canadian people could have made a more “informed” decision. For example, one may ask what purpose did it serve for the Globe and Mail to come out near the end of the campaign to support Harper and the Conservatives.
This role of the media is vital especially when one considers that Harper and the Conservatives have set up one of the biggest propaganda machines that any Democratic country has experienced in recent times.
It does not suffice for the media to say that they are private concerns and so may do as they please. The media plays a very special role in any modern Democracy in “keeping the government honest”. In return, they hold a very special and exceptional position both in law and socially. One need only read the media replies to criticisms and restrictions on freedom to information to hear this argument and from the mouths of the media, when it suites them, of course. Biased reporting for partisan purposes is in reality a violation of this “social trust”.
What is the likelihood of the media changing? You tell me.
Lloyd MacIlquham
18 December, 2008
- Comments on Senate Reform , Lloyd MacIlquham, 17 Jan.’08
I was saving this for a good time to post – now seems to be good
see: Tor Star, "Big brains better than big names", James Travers, Dec 18, 2008 04:30 AM, http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/555601)
Appointed senate for ‘life’ was intended to free senators from partisan politics and to have highly qualified people as opposed to those who are popular or long time party supporters
Senate is according to number of seats for each province
Custom has developed that Senate does not exercise ‘veto’ powers since not elected so limited to review and debate Change to have the province appoint representatives, selected on merit in various areas of activity, the choice procedure to be conducted open and transparently (not necessarily a committee review, not necessarily an election) with strong protocol against partisan choices.
If the term of appointment must be limited then at least 12-16 years with appointments staggered either every four year or six years to avoid large % during one party reign in government adding partisanship and undue bias towards any particular transient socio-economic trends
Number of committees established in various areas of important societal activities - e.g. children; poverty, housing, etc.; minorities; aboriginal and first nations; human rights & charter of rights; law and order, security; science – impact and development; environment; various aspects of economy – domestic, international; population growth including immigration; inter-provincial affairs; taxes; health care; culture; international affairs; (at least one for each department and Ministry of the federal government) etc. Senators appointed based on their expertise in one of these areas to serve on that committee. Each province holds a seat on each committee (or possibly two seats). Committees to deal pro-actively on the various issues as well as review of legislation with sufficient powers to initiate and conduct a review even to the point of a full blown commission. Committees open, transparent and accessible. Parliament may request such a committee and each piece of legislation subject to some kind of review and bound to consider the committee reports in open and transparent fashion.
Example:
“public benefit” products, sectors – there is a need in a segment of the population that is compelling but this need is not being taken care of by the private sector, for whatever reason for exampled, either because chances of a profit are not high enough to motivate the private sector such as too expensive to develop and the segment benefited is too small or regulations on private industry cause too long a delay in bringing to market; as well as, strategic products, simply too important to Canadian for economic, health , or whatever other reasons, that there is a public benefit in direct involvement.
Basic problems with turning to private companies to due research and take products to the market place for “public benefit” products is that they may not be profitable.
For example, pharmaceuticals are reducing the amount of research for antibiotics because of their infrequent use in the population, so can spend 100’s of million in research and never recoup it. Canada establish programs to either set up facilities to do the research or fund existing private companies.
Whenever some breakthrough in research is announced it is always followed up with “George Murphy, a study co-author and chief of dermatopathology at Brigham and Women's Hospital, said this proves the principle that specifically targeting and attacking cancer stem cells can work. The next step is to see if the same strategy will work in humans, he said, adding new melanoma treatment will likely be years down the road.” (See Scientists slow cancer's growth, By destroying stem cells that drive tumour's expansion, melanoma can be controlled http://www.thestar.com/living/article/294901Jan 17, 2008 04:30 AM)
Or “it will be 10 years, etc.”
If it that important then why 10 years, presumably due to costs, perhaps the regulations can be adjusted to facilitate research, but maintain safety.
Environmental research, …,
Senate committees to identify these “public benefit” products and make recommendations, then mechanism for their approval and investment
see: Tor Star, "Big brains better than big names", James Travers, Dec 18, 2008 04:30 AM, http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/555601)
Appointed senate for ‘life’ was intended to free senators from partisan politics and to have highly qualified people as opposed to those who are popular or long time party supporters
Senate is according to number of seats for each province
Custom has developed that Senate does not exercise ‘veto’ powers since not elected so limited to review and debate Change to have the province appoint representatives, selected on merit in various areas of activity, the choice procedure to be conducted open and transparently (not necessarily a committee review, not necessarily an election) with strong protocol against partisan choices.
If the term of appointment must be limited then at least 12-16 years with appointments staggered either every four year or six years to avoid large % during one party reign in government adding partisanship and undue bias towards any particular transient socio-economic trends
Number of committees established in various areas of important societal activities - e.g. children; poverty, housing, etc.; minorities; aboriginal and first nations; human rights & charter of rights; law and order, security; science – impact and development; environment; various aspects of economy – domestic, international; population growth including immigration; inter-provincial affairs; taxes; health care; culture; international affairs; (at least one for each department and Ministry of the federal government) etc. Senators appointed based on their expertise in one of these areas to serve on that committee. Each province holds a seat on each committee (or possibly two seats). Committees to deal pro-actively on the various issues as well as review of legislation with sufficient powers to initiate and conduct a review even to the point of a full blown commission. Committees open, transparent and accessible. Parliament may request such a committee and each piece of legislation subject to some kind of review and bound to consider the committee reports in open and transparent fashion.
Example:
“public benefit” products, sectors – there is a need in a segment of the population that is compelling but this need is not being taken care of by the private sector, for whatever reason for exampled, either because chances of a profit are not high enough to motivate the private sector such as too expensive to develop and the segment benefited is too small or regulations on private industry cause too long a delay in bringing to market; as well as, strategic products, simply too important to Canadian for economic, health , or whatever other reasons, that there is a public benefit in direct involvement.
Basic problems with turning to private companies to due research and take products to the market place for “public benefit” products is that they may not be profitable.
For example, pharmaceuticals are reducing the amount of research for antibiotics because of their infrequent use in the population, so can spend 100’s of million in research and never recoup it. Canada establish programs to either set up facilities to do the research or fund existing private companies.
Whenever some breakthrough in research is announced it is always followed up with “George Murphy, a study co-author and chief of dermatopathology at Brigham and Women's Hospital, said this proves the principle that specifically targeting and attacking cancer stem cells can work. The next step is to see if the same strategy will work in humans, he said, adding new melanoma treatment will likely be years down the road.” (See Scientists slow cancer's growth, By destroying stem cells that drive tumour's expansion, melanoma can be controlled http://www.thestar.com/living/article/294901Jan 17, 2008 04:30 AM)
Or “it will be 10 years, etc.”
If it that important then why 10 years, presumably due to costs, perhaps the regulations can be adjusted to facilitate research, but maintain safety.
Environmental research, …,
Senate committees to identify these “public benefit” products and make recommendations, then mechanism for their approval and investment
06 December, 2008
- Letter to the Liberal Party Executive Regarding Electing a New Leader
Here is the E-mail to Doug Ferguson and Greg Fergus, of the Liberal Executive in the morning of 5 Dec. regarding this issue. I have yet to receive a response.
. . .
We do not know what Harper and the Governor General talked about and whether the Governor General simply followed Harper’s advise or whether she put some kind of conditions on it.
Simply following Harper’s advise, of course, suggest strongly to me, that if Harper is defeated in a vote of non-confidence at the end of January, the Governor General will follow his advise to dissolve Parliament and call an election.
Also, if she simply followed his advise to prorogue without any kind of qualification to him, then what is to stop him from advising another prorogueing of parliament in January, assuming he calls to reconvene Parliament.
If the Governor General put conditions like “You get one chance to do something, if you come to me at the end of January after a vote of non-confidence I will invite the Opposition to form a government” then all Canadians ought to be told. For obvious reasons Harper would be highly motivated to keep this secret.
I would demand that he give an accurate and substantively complete outline of what was said, except I have no confidence in him to do so in a truthful manner.
Electing a New Leader of the Liberal Party Immediately
I am sure that many people feel that if there is a showdown with Harper and the Conservatives, if Dion is leader of the Liberal party it will be a disaster. This is especially true if there is an election called in late January.
If Dion remains leader, there will, obviously, be a very strong motivation for Liberal MP’s to abstain from any confidence vote until May when the new leader is elected. . That would be a path disastrous to our country and the Liberal Party.
For these reasons, and as suggested by David Herle, yesterday, we must have a new leader by the time Parliament is reconvenes at the end of January.
It is not feasible to move up the convention to mid January, obviously.
That is why I am proposing that the Liberal Party hold a general vote, by all members. This, it is submitted, could, especially given modern technology, quite feasible to arrange by mid January. If a Canada wide general election can be held within 35 days of being called, so too, can a Liberal Party election.
If the Liberal Party Constitution cannot be satisfied within this kind of time frame; then, certainly upon the vote being tallied Mr. Dion could step down as leader and the Executive appoint the person elected as “interim” leader until that person, man or woman, can be formally confirmed as leader in satisfaction of the Liberal Party Constitution. [Clarification: The mechanism for this - the choices in this vote would be from the existing candidates in the leadership race and when one is “elected” in this fashion, the other would withdraw from the race. Then, the convention would be an “Acclimation”.]
I would certainly be quite willing to pass up my Christmas and News Years to assist in this.
Below (or refer to my Blog: http://cicblog.com/comments.html) is a copy of my comment on Broadbent’s Statements in the G&M this morning (I also submitted (as of this E-mail it hasn’t appeared) a portion (in bold) to the CTV article “Huge job losses in Ont. push up unemployment rate”, CTV.ca, Dec. 5 2008
W. Lloyd MacIlquham, B.Sc., M.Sc., J.D.
Barrister and Solicitor
*****************
Ed Broadbent has always belonged to a party I have never been able to support.
However, I cannot recall any time the Party I support (Liberal) or any other party questioned his sincerity, dedication and integrity.
Never have I heard, in my recollection, anyone whether publicly or in private discussion accuse him of the things that he has laid out in this commentary, let alone present the facts to support such accusations.
Ed Braodbent can stand up proudly as to how he has served our country over many years. Previously as a fierce competitor in the House of Commons and now as a Statesman for Canada. The NDP can also point to a proud History (despite my not agreeing with them all the time).
I say to you, Harper can not! And; the Conservative Party can not!
Now to add more support to Mr.Braodbent’s statements:
71,000 jobs lost in November, 66,000 in Ontario.
Now we know why Harper went to the Governor General yesterday as opposed to today or Monday!
The likelihood of this being a co-incidence is to me remote. Harper had to have know these facts before he went to advise the Governor General.
Harper has refused to discuss what was said.
So, we can only wonder if he advised her that he next day the job rates for November would be announced and be so strikingly brutal.
I would demand that he give an accurate and substantively complete outline of what was said, except I have no confidence in him to do so in a truthful manner.
What a sad commentary on the person who calls himself ‘Canada’s Prime Minister’.
God save us, God save Canada
Lloyd MacIlquham
. . .
We do not know what Harper and the Governor General talked about and whether the Governor General simply followed Harper’s advise or whether she put some kind of conditions on it.
Simply following Harper’s advise, of course, suggest strongly to me, that if Harper is defeated in a vote of non-confidence at the end of January, the Governor General will follow his advise to dissolve Parliament and call an election.
Also, if she simply followed his advise to prorogue without any kind of qualification to him, then what is to stop him from advising another prorogueing of parliament in January, assuming he calls to reconvene Parliament.
If the Governor General put conditions like “You get one chance to do something, if you come to me at the end of January after a vote of non-confidence I will invite the Opposition to form a government” then all Canadians ought to be told. For obvious reasons Harper would be highly motivated to keep this secret.
I would demand that he give an accurate and substantively complete outline of what was said, except I have no confidence in him to do so in a truthful manner.
Electing a New Leader of the Liberal Party Immediately
I am sure that many people feel that if there is a showdown with Harper and the Conservatives, if Dion is leader of the Liberal party it will be a disaster. This is especially true if there is an election called in late January.
If Dion remains leader, there will, obviously, be a very strong motivation for Liberal MP’s to abstain from any confidence vote until May when the new leader is elected. . That would be a path disastrous to our country and the Liberal Party.
For these reasons, and as suggested by David Herle, yesterday, we must have a new leader by the time Parliament is reconvenes at the end of January.
It is not feasible to move up the convention to mid January, obviously.
That is why I am proposing that the Liberal Party hold a general vote, by all members. This, it is submitted, could, especially given modern technology, quite feasible to arrange by mid January. If a Canada wide general election can be held within 35 days of being called, so too, can a Liberal Party election.
If the Liberal Party Constitution cannot be satisfied within this kind of time frame; then, certainly upon the vote being tallied Mr. Dion could step down as leader and the Executive appoint the person elected as “interim” leader until that person, man or woman, can be formally confirmed as leader in satisfaction of the Liberal Party Constitution. [Clarification: The mechanism for this - the choices in this vote would be from the existing candidates in the leadership race and when one is “elected” in this fashion, the other would withdraw from the race. Then, the convention would be an “Acclimation”.]
I would certainly be quite willing to pass up my Christmas and News Years to assist in this.
Below (or refer to my Blog: http://cicblog.com/comments.html) is a copy of my comment on Broadbent’s Statements in the G&M this morning (I also submitted (as of this E-mail it hasn’t appeared) a portion (in bold) to the CTV article “Huge job losses in Ont. push up unemployment rate”, CTV.ca, Dec. 5 2008
W. Lloyd MacIlquham, B.Sc., M.Sc., J.D.
Barrister and Solicitor
*****************
Ed Broadbent has always belonged to a party I have never been able to support.
However, I cannot recall any time the Party I support (Liberal) or any other party questioned his sincerity, dedication and integrity.
Never have I heard, in my recollection, anyone whether publicly or in private discussion accuse him of the things that he has laid out in this commentary, let alone present the facts to support such accusations.
Ed Braodbent can stand up proudly as to how he has served our country over many years. Previously as a fierce competitor in the House of Commons and now as a Statesman for Canada. The NDP can also point to a proud History (despite my not agreeing with them all the time).
I say to you, Harper can not! And; the Conservative Party can not!
Now to add more support to Mr.Braodbent’s statements:
71,000 jobs lost in November, 66,000 in Ontario.
Now we know why Harper went to the Governor General yesterday as opposed to today or Monday!
The likelihood of this being a co-incidence is to me remote. Harper had to have know these facts before he went to advise the Governor General.
Harper has refused to discuss what was said.
So, we can only wonder if he advised her that he next day the job rates for November would be announced and be so strikingly brutal.
I would demand that he give an accurate and substantively complete outline of what was said, except I have no confidence in him to do so in a truthful manner.
What a sad commentary on the person who calls himself ‘Canada’s Prime Minister’.
God save us, God save Canada
Lloyd MacIlquham
05 December, 2008
- Comments on Ed Braodbent’s statements
“Fanning the fires of national disunity”, Ed Braodbent, G&M, 4 Dec.’08
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081204.wcobroadbent05/CommentStory/politics/home#commentLatest
_____
Ed Broadbent has always belonged to a party I have never been able to support.
However, I cannot recall any time the Party I support (Liberal) or any other party questioned his sincerity, dedication and integrity.
Never have I heard, in my recollection, anyone whether publicly or in private discussion accuse him of the things that he has laid out in this commentary, let alone present the facts to support such accusations.
Ed Braodbent can stand up proudly as to how he has served our country over many years. Previously as a fierce competitor in the House of Commons and now as a Statesman for Canada. The NDP can also point to a proud History (despite my not agreeing with them all the time).
I say to you, Harper can not! And; the Conservative Party can not!
Now to add more support to Mr.Braodbent’s statements:
71,000 jobs lost in November, 66,000 in Ontario.
Now we know why Harper went to the Governor General yesterday as opposed to today or Monday!
The likelihood of this being a co-incidence is to me remote. Harper had to have know these facts before he went to advise the Governor General.
Harper has refused to discuss what was said.
So, we can only wonder if he advised her that he next day the job rates for November would be announced and be so strikingly brutal.
I would demand that he give an accurate and substantively complete outline of what was said, except I have no confidence in him to do so in a truthful manner.
What a sad commentary on the person who calls himself ‘Canada’s Prime Minister’.
God save us, God save Canada
Lloyd MacIlquham
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081204.wcobroadbent05/CommentStory/politics/home#commentLatest
_____
Ed Broadbent has always belonged to a party I have never been able to support.
However, I cannot recall any time the Party I support (Liberal) or any other party questioned his sincerity, dedication and integrity.
Never have I heard, in my recollection, anyone whether publicly or in private discussion accuse him of the things that he has laid out in this commentary, let alone present the facts to support such accusations.
Ed Braodbent can stand up proudly as to how he has served our country over many years. Previously as a fierce competitor in the House of Commons and now as a Statesman for Canada. The NDP can also point to a proud History (despite my not agreeing with them all the time).
I say to you, Harper can not! And; the Conservative Party can not!
Now to add more support to Mr.Braodbent’s statements:
71,000 jobs lost in November, 66,000 in Ontario.
Now we know why Harper went to the Governor General yesterday as opposed to today or Monday!
The likelihood of this being a co-incidence is to me remote. Harper had to have know these facts before he went to advise the Governor General.
Harper has refused to discuss what was said.
So, we can only wonder if he advised her that he next day the job rates for November would be announced and be so strikingly brutal.
I would demand that he give an accurate and substantively complete outline of what was said, except I have no confidence in him to do so in a truthful manner.
What a sad commentary on the person who calls himself ‘Canada’s Prime Minister’.
God save us, God save Canada
Lloyd MacIlquham
03 December, 2008
- Mr. Harper, Tear Down Your Wall !
If there was any mandate to Harper and the Conservatives in the last election it was to put partisanship aside and work with the Opposition Parties to protect us from economic ruin, as he ought. He has failed precisely in this 'trust'. Instead he has put aside any pretense of co-operating with the Opposition to protect us against economic ruin in order to promote partisan self interest. It is Harper who has failed to live up to the mandate of the people in this last election.
In so doing he has lost the trust of Parliament and its confidence.
And, in so doing he has wasted the very precious time required to take swift and effective steps to address these very serious and quickly deteriorating economic conditions.
Rather, Harper is doing everything he can to show his contempt and distain for the duly elected Parliament, despite deriving his authority and position of Prime Minister thru its Confidence. He has, and is, showing no respect for the time honoured Institutions that are Canadian Democracy and has deluded himself into thinking that he has somehow been anointed King as opposed to obtaining a minority. If allowed to continue he may well irreversibly harm or destroy these Institutions. One wonders if, indeed, he is taking advantage of these difficult and turbulent economic times to forward such a plan.
The Liberal-NDP coalition has the trust of Parliament and its confidence. Further it will bring stability during these very serious economic times.
Harper’s claim that this is a separatist coalition is, obviously, hyperbola, designed to scare those who blindly put their trust in the office of Prime Minister. Mr. Dion, given his past dedication to keeping Canada together in the face of real separatist threats, is amply qualified to keep any separatists at bay.
Harper is disenfranchising a very large percentage of the people of Canada and in particular, Quebec. 1,379,565 people in Quebec voted for Block candidates and 50 Block Candidates were duly elected.
That is, by saying that the Liberal-NDP coalition ought not to listen to the Block and the Block ought not to support the coalition, Harper is marginalizing these duly elected representatives of the people and effectively denying 38.1% of the Quebec voters the right to be heard in Parliament.
We are not talking about whether someone “voted for Harper or Dion to be Prime Minister”, which is not applicable in our Democratic Parliamentary System . (In our Parliamentary System, as it now stands, and has through many generations, citizens vote for the person they want to represent them in Parliament.) We are talking about denying their duly elected representatives from a voice in Parliament. This goes to the very heart of our Democratic Institutions and Principals. It is totally within Harper’s modus operandi to marginalize the Block since he is attempting to marginalize all the Opposition Parties, and, indeed Parliament itself. That Harper made a very similar agreement with the Block whilst in Opposition during the Martin minority a very short time ago goes to the questioning of Harper’s motives and intent.
The way to heel the wounds caused by past spasms of separation is not through marginalizing but by inclusion. Whether there is a coalition or not all MP from Quebec must be heard, they have the right to be heard. If they are marginalized it can only go towards feeding the flames of separation which could rent our country asunder.
Now Harper is organizing ‘rallies’ to demonstrate his support. If every single person in each of these centres that voted for the Conservative candidate in the last election (approx. 2.5 million) attended there would be no more than 18% of all voters. In other words, even if 2.5 million people attended, no reasonable conclusion could be drawn as to how Canadians, generally, are feeling about Harper and what he has done or the Liberal-NDP coalition. It would only reliably indicate how Harper loyalists are feeling and we already know that. Thus, one may only wonder what is the real purpose of these ‘rallies’.
The Governor General’s decision is not simply choosing a person to run this Country this is taking the necessary steps to protect our Democracy and save our country.
The Governor General’s primary purpose is to preserve our Democratic Institutions and protect our country. This cannot be done by granting a request by Stephen Harper to suspend, or prorogue, Parliament. Nor can we waste any more precious time, or overburden the Canadian people, in calling another election. Harper has wasted more than we have. Further, Mr. Harper’s contempt and distain for Parliament shows that even if he gave a return date, it could not be relied upon.
I shudder to have to peer into our future and the future of Canada as we know it.
In so doing he has lost the trust of Parliament and its confidence.
And, in so doing he has wasted the very precious time required to take swift and effective steps to address these very serious and quickly deteriorating economic conditions.
Rather, Harper is doing everything he can to show his contempt and distain for the duly elected Parliament, despite deriving his authority and position of Prime Minister thru its Confidence. He has, and is, showing no respect for the time honoured Institutions that are Canadian Democracy and has deluded himself into thinking that he has somehow been anointed King as opposed to obtaining a minority. If allowed to continue he may well irreversibly harm or destroy these Institutions. One wonders if, indeed, he is taking advantage of these difficult and turbulent economic times to forward such a plan.
The Liberal-NDP coalition has the trust of Parliament and its confidence. Further it will bring stability during these very serious economic times.
Harper’s claim that this is a separatist coalition is, obviously, hyperbola, designed to scare those who blindly put their trust in the office of Prime Minister. Mr. Dion, given his past dedication to keeping Canada together in the face of real separatist threats, is amply qualified to keep any separatists at bay.
Harper is disenfranchising a very large percentage of the people of Canada and in particular, Quebec. 1,379,565 people in Quebec voted for Block candidates and 50 Block Candidates were duly elected.
That is, by saying that the Liberal-NDP coalition ought not to listen to the Block and the Block ought not to support the coalition, Harper is marginalizing these duly elected representatives of the people and effectively denying 38.1% of the Quebec voters the right to be heard in Parliament.
We are not talking about whether someone “voted for Harper or Dion to be Prime Minister”, which is not applicable in our Democratic Parliamentary System . (In our Parliamentary System, as it now stands, and has through many generations, citizens vote for the person they want to represent them in Parliament.) We are talking about denying their duly elected representatives from a voice in Parliament. This goes to the very heart of our Democratic Institutions and Principals. It is totally within Harper’s modus operandi to marginalize the Block since he is attempting to marginalize all the Opposition Parties, and, indeed Parliament itself. That Harper made a very similar agreement with the Block whilst in Opposition during the Martin minority a very short time ago goes to the questioning of Harper’s motives and intent.
The way to heel the wounds caused by past spasms of separation is not through marginalizing but by inclusion. Whether there is a coalition or not all MP from Quebec must be heard, they have the right to be heard. If they are marginalized it can only go towards feeding the flames of separation which could rent our country asunder.
Now Harper is organizing ‘rallies’ to demonstrate his support. If every single person in each of these centres that voted for the Conservative candidate in the last election (approx. 2.5 million) attended there would be no more than 18% of all voters. In other words, even if 2.5 million people attended, no reasonable conclusion could be drawn as to how Canadians, generally, are feeling about Harper and what he has done or the Liberal-NDP coalition. It would only reliably indicate how Harper loyalists are feeling and we already know that. Thus, one may only wonder what is the real purpose of these ‘rallies’.
The Governor General’s decision is not simply choosing a person to run this Country this is taking the necessary steps to protect our Democracy and save our country.
The Governor General’s primary purpose is to preserve our Democratic Institutions and protect our country. This cannot be done by granting a request by Stephen Harper to suspend, or prorogue, Parliament. Nor can we waste any more precious time, or overburden the Canadian people, in calling another election. Harper has wasted more than we have. Further, Mr. Harper’s contempt and distain for Parliament shows that even if he gave a return date, it could not be relied upon.
I shudder to have to peer into our future and the future of Canada as we know it.
02 December, 2008
- Conservatives at the height of Hypocrisy
Apparently the Con’s are also considering having Harper step down and choosing another leader, who by the way it just so happens would automatically become Prime Minister.
How can anyone take them seriously on this, given that they are spending all their efforts to convince the Canadian people that Dion has no right to become Prime Minister because he wasn’t elected.
Also, who would they choose as Prime Minister . . .
Jim Flaherty !
Or, perhaps, Stockwell Day !
Maybe, John Baird !
How about Preston Manning or Mike Harris.
What you say, they haven’t been elected by the fair voters of our great nation
Hummmm . . . . , I know, they could appoint Preston Manning or Mike Harris to the Senate then give him the Cabinet post of ‘Prime Minister’! After all there is precedent for such.
And in that vein there is always the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney !
But wait, shouldn’t it be a less extremist part of the old PC Party.
Let’s see …. I know, certainly Peter MacKay must be in line given he broke the trust the PC party put in him when they elected him leader not to join the party to the Conservative Party (then Alliance).
– God help us!!!
I don’t recall the Conservatives running on the platform that if they lose the trust and confidence of Parliament that they will at the same time claim that they can instill another as Prime Minister without election but Parliament, who right it is to choose the Prime Minster does not have the right to replace with someone that has their trust and confidence.
What unabashed Hypocrisy.
Lloyd MacIlquham
How can anyone take them seriously on this, given that they are spending all their efforts to convince the Canadian people that Dion has no right to become Prime Minister because he wasn’t elected.
Also, who would they choose as Prime Minister . . .
Jim Flaherty !
Or, perhaps, Stockwell Day !
Maybe, John Baird !
How about Preston Manning or Mike Harris.
What you say, they haven’t been elected by the fair voters of our great nation
Hummmm . . . . , I know, they could appoint Preston Manning or Mike Harris to the Senate then give him the Cabinet post of ‘Prime Minister’! After all there is precedent for such.
And in that vein there is always the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney !
But wait, shouldn’t it be a less extremist part of the old PC Party.
Let’s see …. I know, certainly Peter MacKay must be in line given he broke the trust the PC party put in him when they elected him leader not to join the party to the Conservative Party (then Alliance).
– God help us!!!
I don’t recall the Conservatives running on the platform that if they lose the trust and confidence of Parliament that they will at the same time claim that they can instill another as Prime Minister without election but Parliament, who right it is to choose the Prime Minster does not have the right to replace with someone that has their trust and confidence.
What unabashed Hypocrisy.
Lloyd MacIlquham
- To Stephen Harper, ‘Put Canada first and stop the nonsense’!
Harper and the Conservatives have lost the trust and confidence of Parliament.
They have done this by ignoring Parliament and refusing to take swift and effective action to address the very serious and fast developing crisis we Canadians, as with everyone else in the world, are facing right now. He decided to, instead, to ignore the crisis to take partisan advantage of the situation to hamstring the Opposition.
As Patricia Croft, Cheif Economist for RBC Global Asset management put it yesterday on CTV News Harper and the Conservatives had the ability to put something together but are "fiddling while Rome burns".
For Harper and the Conservatives to say wait until a month or two months from now is something like telling the people of New Orleans to wait until after Katrina hits to see where the weaknesses in the restraining walls are so they can decide what to do. What about all those people who get hurt when the old restraining wall give way. [I know I have used this before, but I think it is right on and makes clear the current situation]
It is exactly that Harper and the Conservatives have not ‘put Canada first’ but have continued their ‘non-sense’ that has required the Opposition to unite and present themself as the only viable choice to lead Parliament.
The Canadian people elect Parliament and Parliament chooses the Governing Party, the Governing Party elects the Prime Minister. (No one who understands the Canadian Democratic system would say it would be undemocratic for a governing party to elect another leader who would, without being elected by the people take power as Prime Minster – for example, say Harper were to resign and the Con’s elected Flaherty as their leader.)
How does this give Harper the right to govern.
Quite frankly it doesn't, Parliament gives him the right to govern and Parliament has not only lost confidence in Harper and the Conservative Party it has lost trust in Harper and the Conservative Party.
If there was any mandate to Harper and the Conservatives in the last election it was to put partisanship aside and work with the Opposition Parties to protect us from economic ruin, as he ought. He has failed precisely in this 'trust'. Instead he has put aside any pretense of co-operating with the Opposition to protect us against economic ruin to promote partisan self interest. It is Harper who has failed to live up to the mandate of the people in this last election.
Harper’s actions are outrageous.
Harper ought to have the decency to put Canada first and step aside forthwith and allow Parliament to put in place someone they have trust and confidence in to salvage what they can. By continuing and vowing to fight he is only causing worse damage to all of us and wasting the scarce and precious time available to do what is required.
[Comments on G&M “Stelmach to Ottawa: 'Stop the nonsense'“ In response to Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach “Put Canada first and stop the nonsense,” ]
Lloyd MacIlquham
They have done this by ignoring Parliament and refusing to take swift and effective action to address the very serious and fast developing crisis we Canadians, as with everyone else in the world, are facing right now. He decided to, instead, to ignore the crisis to take partisan advantage of the situation to hamstring the Opposition.
As Patricia Croft, Cheif Economist for RBC Global Asset management put it yesterday on CTV News Harper and the Conservatives had the ability to put something together but are "fiddling while Rome burns".
For Harper and the Conservatives to say wait until a month or two months from now is something like telling the people of New Orleans to wait until after Katrina hits to see where the weaknesses in the restraining walls are so they can decide what to do. What about all those people who get hurt when the old restraining wall give way. [I know I have used this before, but I think it is right on and makes clear the current situation]
It is exactly that Harper and the Conservatives have not ‘put Canada first’ but have continued their ‘non-sense’ that has required the Opposition to unite and present themself as the only viable choice to lead Parliament.
The Canadian people elect Parliament and Parliament chooses the Governing Party, the Governing Party elects the Prime Minister. (No one who understands the Canadian Democratic system would say it would be undemocratic for a governing party to elect another leader who would, without being elected by the people take power as Prime Minster – for example, say Harper were to resign and the Con’s elected Flaherty as their leader.)
How does this give Harper the right to govern.
Quite frankly it doesn't, Parliament gives him the right to govern and Parliament has not only lost confidence in Harper and the Conservative Party it has lost trust in Harper and the Conservative Party.
If there was any mandate to Harper and the Conservatives in the last election it was to put partisanship aside and work with the Opposition Parties to protect us from economic ruin, as he ought. He has failed precisely in this 'trust'. Instead he has put aside any pretense of co-operating with the Opposition to protect us against economic ruin to promote partisan self interest. It is Harper who has failed to live up to the mandate of the people in this last election.
Harper’s actions are outrageous.
Harper ought to have the decency to put Canada first and step aside forthwith and allow Parliament to put in place someone they have trust and confidence in to salvage what they can. By continuing and vowing to fight he is only causing worse damage to all of us and wasting the scarce and precious time available to do what is required.
[Comments on G&M “Stelmach to Ottawa: 'Stop the nonsense'“ In response to Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach “Put Canada first and stop the nonsense,” ]
Lloyd MacIlquham
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)