For a gang eager to bring on the election both the Conservatives and the New Democrats seem to be having an extraordinarily hard time of finding people to stand for election carrying the party colours.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, the Dippers have three candidates out of seven nominated and no one is even showing the slightest hint of interest in carrying the Orange banner into another giant bonfire of failure at the end.
Making it doubly hard this time: Jack Layton's comments that people shouldn't vote for third place candidates in order to stop the Harperites from taking a seat.
Over in the Land of Con, the Blue Machine is missing a few candidates as well. They managed to browbeat, cajole and otherwise sucker Fabe Manning into taking on the task in Avalon. Some guy turned up today on the province's west coast willing to back Stephen Harper against Gerry Byrne. (My money is on Byrne, by quite a bit.)
The other seats are all blank spots for the Conservatives.
Meanwhile in St. John's both their candidates are the incumbents, provincial Conservative retreads who first campaigned in the 1970s and who first got elected to the provincial legislature in the mid 1980s.
So far, there's no repeat of last time though.
The Connies were so desperate to find someone to run against John Efford that the ever dyspeptic John Crosbie threatened to take a run at the nomination. The guy who should have run there - Loyola Hearn lives in Renews, in the southern Avalon - decided he wanted a safe seat and decided to run in St. John's.
Word is that Crosbie's wife Jane put a stop to the old boy's musing.
Would that she had done that in 1975.
13 December 2005
Choice my foot - updated
What do Scott Reid, the prime minister's communications director and Liam O'Brien, the Conservatives chief blogger in Newfoundland and Labrador, have in common?
They are both apparently single men with no dependent children, talking about child care.
As a result, both of them miss the point about the Conservative Party's plan to give parents of children under six years of age an annual taxable payment of $1,200 for each child.
For Reid, he made the mistake of saying that parents would have $25 a week to blow on beer and popcorn instead of providing affordable child care spaces.
For O'Brien, like the party he supports, he made the mistake of claiming that the Conservative plan offers parents a choice in child care.
Neither could be farther from the truth. Simple math would have started them both on the right road.
The Conservative plan would amount to less than $25 per week or less than $5 per day, before taxes. After taxes, it could amount to as little as $2.30 per day.
For the 84% of Canadian families in which both parents work, $2.30 works out to next to nothing at all. A typical daycare in Newfoundland and Labrador costs about $500 per month for one child. That means the Conservative Party is offering less than 10% of the daily cost of that modestly priced service.
To offer meaningful choice of the kind Conservatives are talking about, one parent would stay at home providing child care for the first five years of a child's life. For single parents, the Conservative approach would mean that the parent would need income support for that entire period. In short, that means that the Conservative Party would have to offer about $30, 000 annually over a five year period.
Instead of that $150, 000, the Conservatives are offering a mere $7200, less than 5% of the amount required.
Choice my foot.
If Reid had wanted to demolish the Conservative policy for the fraud it is, he would not have raised the moronic point that the money would be spent on beer and popcorn. Even if parents in Canada were so monumentally irresponsible - and we are not - one doubts whether they could find a bottle of beer and a bag of popcorn anywhere in Canada for less than $2.50.
Rather Reid should have simply pointed to the blatant nonsense of the Conservative rhetoric about choice in light of the paltry sums the Conservatives are offering. The facts would have spoken for themselves.
If the Conservatives genuinely believed their proposal has merit, then they would not be working so hard to raise irrelevant points. Choice is but one; a parent under their program would still be compelled to send his or her child to daycare.
This undermines the second argument, one O'Brien loves, namely that the Liberal proposal is to create a "nanny-state" in which government replaces parents as caregivers. As O'Brien puts it: "stop advocating the Liberal government-daycare-one-size-fits-all monolith child care policy, opt for the fund-parents and allow-for-choice policy in child care!"
The very fact that people like O'Brien must conjure such fictitious boogie men reveals the weakness of their position.
As if that were not enough, O'Brien has now taken to challenging Liberals to fund a better choice program. He clearly does not wish to take responsibility for the failings of his own argument. Instead, he tries to fob it off on someone else. To paraphrase O'Brien, Conservatives are so sincere about choice in childcare that someone else should offer more cash to pay for it.
As single men with no children that I know of, both Reid and O'Brien are incredible commentators to start with. However it is the slipperiness of the argument, the blatant insincerity that destroys what shreds of credibility O'Brien and Conservatives could muster outside their own narrow circles. Reid's comments, as asinine as they were, simply cannot compare.
The Liberal Party solution, already in place, is to provide more child care places and early childhood learning for the majority of Canadian families who find that, in this day and age, both parents must work in order to provide an appropriate standard of living.
Given a choice, we parents might prefer to have one partner stay at home; that simply isn't an option for most of us these days. If we cannot find the support of our parents, as some of us were fortunate enough to do, we want reliable, accredited day care spaces where our children can learn and be nurtured. That is the essence of the Liberal and New Democrat child care proposals.
The current situation is not sufficient, but it is a start. As Canadians we should look at other tax and income support initiatives which firstly do not penalize couples for having children and secondly, offer genuinely nurturing experiences for children outside the home.
What we should reject are the sort of shams offered by the Conservatives under the guise of choice. Theirs are little more than meaningless words delivered, ultimately, with all the sincerity that can be mustered by the paid actors of their television commercials.
For what it is worth, Scott Reid should bear a little extra shame for his comments. He has succeeded in taking attention away from the Conservatives choice fraud. Given his apology, though, in due course, Canadians will be able to get past the howls of scorn from the Conservatives.
Their noise is merely a temporary diversion.
The shallowness of their position will soon again become plain.
[Update - Liam O'Brien's attack on this post is, predictably, longwinded. It also ignores the points made. As a friend of mine said when comparing the child care plans, anyone who thinks 12 hundred bucks offers choice in child care anywhere in this country has obviously never had children or had to pay for child care.
Liam apparently finds it a personal attack that I noted he is a single man with no dependent children commenting on child care. It would only be attack if it were untrue. As it is true - apparently - it merely constitutes pointing out a painfully obvious fact.
At the same time, a loyal e-mail correspondent advises that Mr. Reid, in fact, does have children. This is something I did not know when I wrote the post. His beer and pizza crack therefore is all the more baffling since he knows the 12 hundred bucks works out to half a tank of gas (at current prices) per week for a typical compact car like the one I drive.
The reality of the Conservatives' plan condemns it as the fraud it is.]
They are both apparently single men with no dependent children, talking about child care.
As a result, both of them miss the point about the Conservative Party's plan to give parents of children under six years of age an annual taxable payment of $1,200 for each child.
For Reid, he made the mistake of saying that parents would have $25 a week to blow on beer and popcorn instead of providing affordable child care spaces.
For O'Brien, like the party he supports, he made the mistake of claiming that the Conservative plan offers parents a choice in child care.
Neither could be farther from the truth. Simple math would have started them both on the right road.
The Conservative plan would amount to less than $25 per week or less than $5 per day, before taxes. After taxes, it could amount to as little as $2.30 per day.
For the 84% of Canadian families in which both parents work, $2.30 works out to next to nothing at all. A typical daycare in Newfoundland and Labrador costs about $500 per month for one child. That means the Conservative Party is offering less than 10% of the daily cost of that modestly priced service.
To offer meaningful choice of the kind Conservatives are talking about, one parent would stay at home providing child care for the first five years of a child's life. For single parents, the Conservative approach would mean that the parent would need income support for that entire period. In short, that means that the Conservative Party would have to offer about $30, 000 annually over a five year period.
Instead of that $150, 000, the Conservatives are offering a mere $7200, less than 5% of the amount required.
Choice my foot.
If Reid had wanted to demolish the Conservative policy for the fraud it is, he would not have raised the moronic point that the money would be spent on beer and popcorn. Even if parents in Canada were so monumentally irresponsible - and we are not - one doubts whether they could find a bottle of beer and a bag of popcorn anywhere in Canada for less than $2.50.
Rather Reid should have simply pointed to the blatant nonsense of the Conservative rhetoric about choice in light of the paltry sums the Conservatives are offering. The facts would have spoken for themselves.
If the Conservatives genuinely believed their proposal has merit, then they would not be working so hard to raise irrelevant points. Choice is but one; a parent under their program would still be compelled to send his or her child to daycare.
This undermines the second argument, one O'Brien loves, namely that the Liberal proposal is to create a "nanny-state" in which government replaces parents as caregivers. As O'Brien puts it: "stop advocating the Liberal government-daycare-one-size-fits-all monolith child care policy, opt for the fund-parents and allow-for-choice policy in child care!"
The very fact that people like O'Brien must conjure such fictitious boogie men reveals the weakness of their position.
As if that were not enough, O'Brien has now taken to challenging Liberals to fund a better choice program. He clearly does not wish to take responsibility for the failings of his own argument. Instead, he tries to fob it off on someone else. To paraphrase O'Brien, Conservatives are so sincere about choice in childcare that someone else should offer more cash to pay for it.
As single men with no children that I know of, both Reid and O'Brien are incredible commentators to start with. However it is the slipperiness of the argument, the blatant insincerity that destroys what shreds of credibility O'Brien and Conservatives could muster outside their own narrow circles. Reid's comments, as asinine as they were, simply cannot compare.
The Liberal Party solution, already in place, is to provide more child care places and early childhood learning for the majority of Canadian families who find that, in this day and age, both parents must work in order to provide an appropriate standard of living.
Given a choice, we parents might prefer to have one partner stay at home; that simply isn't an option for most of us these days. If we cannot find the support of our parents, as some of us were fortunate enough to do, we want reliable, accredited day care spaces where our children can learn and be nurtured. That is the essence of the Liberal and New Democrat child care proposals.
The current situation is not sufficient, but it is a start. As Canadians we should look at other tax and income support initiatives which firstly do not penalize couples for having children and secondly, offer genuinely nurturing experiences for children outside the home.
What we should reject are the sort of shams offered by the Conservatives under the guise of choice. Theirs are little more than meaningless words delivered, ultimately, with all the sincerity that can be mustered by the paid actors of their television commercials.
For what it is worth, Scott Reid should bear a little extra shame for his comments. He has succeeded in taking attention away from the Conservatives choice fraud. Given his apology, though, in due course, Canadians will be able to get past the howls of scorn from the Conservatives.
Their noise is merely a temporary diversion.
The shallowness of their position will soon again become plain.
[Update - Liam O'Brien's attack on this post is, predictably, longwinded. It also ignores the points made. As a friend of mine said when comparing the child care plans, anyone who thinks 12 hundred bucks offers choice in child care anywhere in this country has obviously never had children or had to pay for child care.
Liam apparently finds it a personal attack that I noted he is a single man with no dependent children commenting on child care. It would only be attack if it were untrue. As it is true - apparently - it merely constitutes pointing out a painfully obvious fact.
At the same time, a loyal e-mail correspondent advises that Mr. Reid, in fact, does have children. This is something I did not know when I wrote the post. His beer and pizza crack therefore is all the more baffling since he knows the 12 hundred bucks works out to half a tank of gas (at current prices) per week for a typical compact car like the one I drive.
The reality of the Conservatives' plan condemns it as the fraud it is.]
12 December 2005
Harper changing stand on equal marriage?
Not likely.
The Globe and Mail is reporting this morning that the federal Conservative Party is attempting to distance itself from efforts by conservative Christian political activists who oppose equal marriage.
Conservative aides attempted to move the Harper campaign bus ahead of schedule as news media traveling with the Conservative leader attempted to interview David Mainse and Charles McVety.
As the Globe reports, "On Saturday, Charles McVety, the Canada Christian College head who also led the Defend Marriage organization against same-sex marriage, turned up at Mr. Harper's Mississauga rally, and was ushered into an office afterward to meet the party leader. But Tory campaign aides again pushed reporters to leave before Mr. McVety had departed."
Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory told reporters that Ontarians do not wish to re-open the equal marriage debate, settled earlier this year. Harper's first major policy statement was a call to hold a free-vote in the House of Commons on equal marriage. The Conservative Party policy manual contains that commitment plus the commitment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Meanwhile a local Conservative Party supporter is attempting to deflect attention away from Conservative party policy and its association with the religious right. Liam O'Brien points to the number of Newfoundland and Labrador members of parliament who voted against equal marriage as a defense of the Conservative Party policy.
O'Brien made no mention of comments by the Ontario Progressive Conservative leader or the number of Conservative Party candidates affiliated with the religious right. The Conservative candidate in Ajax-Pickering is a a vice-president of one of McVety's organizations. Other Conservative candidates attended a convention last week to organize the religious right as a political movement.
The Globe and Mail is reporting this morning that the federal Conservative Party is attempting to distance itself from efforts by conservative Christian political activists who oppose equal marriage.
Conservative aides attempted to move the Harper campaign bus ahead of schedule as news media traveling with the Conservative leader attempted to interview David Mainse and Charles McVety.
As the Globe reports, "On Saturday, Charles McVety, the Canada Christian College head who also led the Defend Marriage organization against same-sex marriage, turned up at Mr. Harper's Mississauga rally, and was ushered into an office afterward to meet the party leader. But Tory campaign aides again pushed reporters to leave before Mr. McVety had departed."
Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory told reporters that Ontarians do not wish to re-open the equal marriage debate, settled earlier this year. Harper's first major policy statement was a call to hold a free-vote in the House of Commons on equal marriage. The Conservative Party policy manual contains that commitment plus the commitment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Meanwhile a local Conservative Party supporter is attempting to deflect attention away from Conservative party policy and its association with the religious right. Liam O'Brien points to the number of Newfoundland and Labrador members of parliament who voted against equal marriage as a defense of the Conservative Party policy.
O'Brien made no mention of comments by the Ontario Progressive Conservative leader or the number of Conservative Party candidates affiliated with the religious right. The Conservative candidate in Ajax-Pickering is a a vice-president of one of McVety's organizations. Other Conservative candidates attended a convention last week to organize the religious right as a political movement.
Abitibi Stephenville to close?
Talks between Abitibi Consolidated and its workers at Stephenville have broken off, with likely little chance of resumption before the first severance cheques are cut this week.
The issue which once dominated news in the province virtually slipped off the news room monitors in recent weeks.
CBC news is reporting the story somewhat differently, noting that efforts to re-start talks are expected this morning.
Earlier this year, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador agreed to subsidize Abitibi operations at Stephenville in an amount beyond what the province collects in taxes from the mill operations.
The issue which once dominated news in the province virtually slipped off the news room monitors in recent weeks.
CBC news is reporting the story somewhat differently, noting that efforts to re-start talks are expected this morning.
Earlier this year, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador agreed to subsidize Abitibi operations at Stephenville in an amount beyond what the province collects in taxes from the mill operations.
11 December 2005
Harper courts the religious right-wing
Stephen Harper met over the weekend with David Mainse and Dr. Charles McVety. The information was contained in the middle of a Toronto Star article on a campaign rally held in metro Toronto.
Readers of the Bond Papers will recall that McVety is the guy who owns loyolahearn.com. He's also a political activist and operator of Canada Christian College and the School of Graduate Theological Studies. McVety's vice-president, Dr. Rondo Thomas is a Conservative candidate in Pickering, Ontario.
Apparently the issue of prime concern to McVety in this election is overturning the right to equal marriage for gay and lesbian couples. Among other things, McVety is organizing to support the Conservative plans for a vote on equal marriage, should Stephen Harper become prime minister.
The Conservative incumbents from this province oppose equal marriage; St. John's east Conservative Norm Doyle favours a free vote.
McVety also feels that the concept of separation of church and state, an American idea that has no constiutional standing in Canada, has led to Canadian political leaders being less spiritual than they ought to be.
More likely, McVety's problem is that political leaders in Canada don't reflect his views; that shouldn't be confused with a lack of religious faith.
McVety organized a convention in Toronto recently, where, among other things, the conservative political right from Canada got together with its American cousins to organize for the current federal election. They cancelled a grassroots activist school but went ahead with the conference and awards dinner .
There's some neat background over at politicsinbc, the blogspot dot com site that links back to some of the sites already provided here.
The Toronto gig was organized by the Institute for Canadian Values. McVety wrote an article for this outfit back in early November that said Canadian religious conservatives need a local version of Ralph Reed.
Reed founded the Christian Coalition in the late 1980s and served as executive director, with Pat Robertson as president, until Reed left the Coalition in 1997 to become a consultant.
The Coalition's mission is to:
* Represent the pro-family point of view before local councils, school boards, state legislatures and Congress;
* Speak out in the public arena and in the media;
* Train leaders for effective social and political action;
* Inform pro-family voters about timely issues and legislation;
* Protest anti-Christianity bigotry and defend the rights of people of faith;
The Coalition's issues page basically lists a variety of anti-equal marriage, anti-choice, anti-birth control actions that in American political parlance add up to "pro-family".
[TorStar report from Warbicycle]
Readers of the Bond Papers will recall that McVety is the guy who owns loyolahearn.com. He's also a political activist and operator of Canada Christian College and the School of Graduate Theological Studies. McVety's vice-president, Dr. Rondo Thomas is a Conservative candidate in Pickering, Ontario.
Apparently the issue of prime concern to McVety in this election is overturning the right to equal marriage for gay and lesbian couples. Among other things, McVety is organizing to support the Conservative plans for a vote on equal marriage, should Stephen Harper become prime minister.
The Conservative incumbents from this province oppose equal marriage; St. John's east Conservative Norm Doyle favours a free vote.
McVety also feels that the concept of separation of church and state, an American idea that has no constiutional standing in Canada, has led to Canadian political leaders being less spiritual than they ought to be.
More likely, McVety's problem is that political leaders in Canada don't reflect his views; that shouldn't be confused with a lack of religious faith.
McVety organized a convention in Toronto recently, where, among other things, the conservative political right from Canada got together with its American cousins to organize for the current federal election. They cancelled a grassroots activist school but went ahead with the conference and awards dinner .
There's some neat background over at politicsinbc, the blogspot dot com site that links back to some of the sites already provided here.
The Toronto gig was organized by the Institute for Canadian Values. McVety wrote an article for this outfit back in early November that said Canadian religious conservatives need a local version of Ralph Reed.
Reed founded the Christian Coalition in the late 1980s and served as executive director, with Pat Robertson as president, until Reed left the Coalition in 1997 to become a consultant.
The Coalition's mission is to:
* Represent the pro-family point of view before local councils, school boards, state legislatures and Congress;
* Speak out in the public arena and in the media;
* Train leaders for effective social and political action;
* Inform pro-family voters about timely issues and legislation;
* Protest anti-Christianity bigotry and defend the rights of people of faith;
The Coalition's issues page basically lists a variety of anti-equal marriage, anti-choice, anti-birth control actions that in American political parlance add up to "pro-family".
[TorStar report from Warbicycle]
The gaffers scorecard - update
Scott Reid, the prime minister's answer to C.J. Craig and Toby Zeigler put his foot in it during an interview with CBC television on Sunday, saying:
"Don't give people 25 bucks a week to blow on beer and popcorn. Give them child-care spaces that work. Stephen Harper's plan has nothing to do with child care."
He later apologized for the remark.
Meanwhile, Conservative candidate Brian Pallister is in hot water for giving what he termed a "woman's answer" to a question about his future in politics.
CBC quotes Pallister as saying: **"I am copping what's known as a woman's answer, isn't it? It's a sort of fickle kind of thing," he said, responding to criticism that a federal election campaign is no time for a candidate to be examining other job prospects.**
Pallister apparently is standing by his characterization of fickle as being a woman thing.
Anybody can screw up.
It takes guts and character to admit to the mistake.
First thing you have to do is understand you made a mistake.
"Don't give people 25 bucks a week to blow on beer and popcorn. Give them child-care spaces that work. Stephen Harper's plan has nothing to do with child care."
He later apologized for the remark.
Meanwhile, Conservative candidate Brian Pallister is in hot water for giving what he termed a "woman's answer" to a question about his future in politics.
CBC quotes Pallister as saying: **"I am copping what's known as a woman's answer, isn't it? It's a sort of fickle kind of thing," he said, responding to criticism that a federal election campaign is no time for a candidate to be examining other job prospects.**
Pallister apparently is standing by his characterization of fickle as being a woman thing.
Anybody can screw up.
It takes guts and character to admit to the mistake.
First thing you have to do is understand you made a mistake.
More work for dogsbodies
As the election campaign enters its third week, polling from different firms shows a general pattern of Liberals leading nationally, although different polls reports somewhat different margins.
Decima's ongoing online polling for Canadian Press shows the party standings at beginning of week three of campaigning, with the Liberals at 36%, The Conservatives at 27% and the New Democrats at 20%.
This is similar to the most recent Strategic Counsel (SC) poll, but differs somewhat in the numbers from SES.
Earlier this spring and during the last election, some of the variation between polls could be explained by different polling dates. SES, SC and Decima all polled within the same time frame.
The general positioning of the parties nationally is similar, except for SES which shows the gap between Liberals and Conservatives narrowing in the past two days.
Interesting to note that Decima's results for British Columbia are closer to SES than SC. Decima shows the Liberals leading New Democrats 36-32 with the Conservatives at 27. SC reported a three way tie (give or take a point) but a margin of error of seven percent, plus or minus.
EKOS reports results similar to SC but its margin of error (+/- 4.9%) leaves its analytical value in question.
While you have to pay to get the meat of their report, Ipsos is reporting a mere four point spread between Liberals and Conservatives nationally. Their Ontario numbers show the Liberals leading the Conservatives by seven points.
Decima's ongoing online polling for Canadian Press shows the party standings at beginning of week three of campaigning, with the Liberals at 36%, The Conservatives at 27% and the New Democrats at 20%.
This is similar to the most recent Strategic Counsel (SC) poll, but differs somewhat in the numbers from SES.
Earlier this spring and during the last election, some of the variation between polls could be explained by different polling dates. SES, SC and Decima all polled within the same time frame.
The general positioning of the parties nationally is similar, except for SES which shows the gap between Liberals and Conservatives narrowing in the past two days.
Interesting to note that Decima's results for British Columbia are closer to SES than SC. Decima shows the Liberals leading New Democrats 36-32 with the Conservatives at 27. SC reported a three way tie (give or take a point) but a margin of error of seven percent, plus or minus.
EKOS reports results similar to SC but its margin of error (+/- 4.9%) leaves its analytical value in question.
While you have to pay to get the meat of their report, Ipsos is reporting a mere four point spread between Liberals and Conservatives nationally. Their Ontario numbers show the Liberals leading the Conservatives by seven points.
When they pick at this stuff, you know you are doin' fine
When people have nothing else to offer as a criticism, they focus on the fact the Liberal Party of Canada televisions spots feature some people who are clearly identified as Liberals in the graphic beside their names and gee, just surprisingly happen to be Liberal party supporters.
These same "critics" miss all the people who are not members of a Liberal party riding association.
They also ignore entirely the televisions pots from another political party, namely the Conservatives, that, as in the past, feature genuine actors paid to pretend they are "ordinary Canadians".
Hmmm.
Paul Wells, the New Democrats and Warren Kinsella are in this category, the first one and last one surprisingly so.
The middle one makes sense, given that their campaign has tanked and their leader is busily running around the country telling people not to vote for third place candidates to stop the Connies.
Except where his people are in third place (when they actually have a candidate). Apparently, in those ridings, Jack isn't concerned about Conservatives winning.
They'd update their website with nice screen caps, to occupy space that could be taken up by their list of candidates for places like Newfoundland and Labrador.
These same "critics" miss all the people who are not members of a Liberal party riding association.
They also ignore entirely the televisions pots from another political party, namely the Conservatives, that, as in the past, feature genuine actors paid to pretend they are "ordinary Canadians".
Hmmm.
Paul Wells, the New Democrats and Warren Kinsella are in this category, the first one and last one surprisingly so.
The middle one makes sense, given that their campaign has tanked and their leader is busily running around the country telling people not to vote for third place candidates to stop the Connies.
Except where his people are in third place (when they actually have a candidate). Apparently, in those ridings, Jack isn't concerned about Conservatives winning.
They'd update their website with nice screen caps, to occupy space that could be taken up by their list of candidates for places like Newfoundland and Labrador.
Polling position
When people don't understand polling - on any level - and especially when their party is behind in the polls, those same people resort to peeing on them.
Polls are irrelevent.
They are snapshots.
Dogs know what to do with polls.
Blah. Blah. Blah.
Properly conducted polls can reveal a lot of useful information.
One merely has to be able to accept that information and act accordingly.
Anything else is denial.
Polls are irrelevent.
They are snapshots.
Dogs know what to do with polls.
Blah. Blah. Blah.
Properly conducted polls can reveal a lot of useful information.
One merely has to be able to accept that information and act accordingly.
Anything else is denial.
10 December 2005
Blochead hysterics
Helene Chalifour-Sherrer, Liberal candidate in the Quebec riding of Louis-Hebert pointed out in an interview that Quebec is not the "milking cow", and is in fact quite dependent on federal transfer payments. She apparently called Quebec "a poor province". [via Bourque]
The Bloc Quebecois immediately pounced on these comments claiming that if Quebec was a sovereign country it wouldn't be dependent on Ottawa.
Ms. Chalifour-Sherrer has apologised for the remarks.
Unless I am missing something, she has merely pointed out what is patently obvious: Quebec receives more in Equalization (in absolute dollars) than any other province by quite a wide margin. In 2004/05, Quebec received some $3.6 billion in Equalization payments, which is about as much as received by Manitoba, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick combined.
Quebec received about 5.5 times the amount of Equalization received by Newfoundland and Labrador.
I didn't get the sense in the reported comments that she thought this was a good thing.
What is even more remarkable is the crap from le chef des Blocheads Gilles Duceppe who claimed in the Globe and Mail that an independent Quebec would have all the money it needed.
Ok.
So, then perhaps M. Duceppe would care to explain to Canadians why the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois vision of an "independent" Quebec calls for continued transfer payments from Canada after "independence".
The last time a clear question was posed to Quebeckers, the rejected M. Duceppe's view of an "independent" Quebec.
So did Canadians as a whole.
Perhaps M. Duceppe should apologise for being full of crap.
The Bloc Quebecois immediately pounced on these comments claiming that if Quebec was a sovereign country it wouldn't be dependent on Ottawa.
Ms. Chalifour-Sherrer has apologised for the remarks.
Unless I am missing something, she has merely pointed out what is patently obvious: Quebec receives more in Equalization (in absolute dollars) than any other province by quite a wide margin. In 2004/05, Quebec received some $3.6 billion in Equalization payments, which is about as much as received by Manitoba, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick combined.
Quebec received about 5.5 times the amount of Equalization received by Newfoundland and Labrador.
I didn't get the sense in the reported comments that she thought this was a good thing.
What is even more remarkable is the crap from le chef des Blocheads Gilles Duceppe who claimed in the Globe and Mail that an independent Quebec would have all the money it needed.
Ok.
So, then perhaps M. Duceppe would care to explain to Canadians why the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois vision of an "independent" Quebec calls for continued transfer payments from Canada after "independence".
The last time a clear question was posed to Quebeckers, the rejected M. Duceppe's view of an "independent" Quebec.
So did Canadians as a whole.
Perhaps M. Duceppe should apologise for being full of crap.
Connies use public bucks to fund campaign
Calgary West Conservative candidate Rob Anders took the time before hitting the campaign trail to print a brochure aimed at voters in Richmond, British Columbia.St. John's South-Mount Pearl Conservative candidate Loyola Hearn circulated a household calendar.
What do they have in common?
The House of Commons. As sitting members of parliament in the last session, both were entitled to use public money to circulate reports on their performance to households in their constituency.
The problem is both Hearn and Anders - and any other MP of any other party - knew full well the House was due to close on November 28th. Any print jobs in progress should have been cancelled.
There are just no excuses.
It's that simple.
Hearn managed to do the same thing in 2004 with a householder that arrived in voter's homes the Friday before the writ dropped. The piece contained numerous factual mistakes and claimed credit for projects - like the St. John's harbour clean-up - that he had nothing to do with.
Anders' pamphlet is a particularly malodourous piece of political garbage, mixing together the current Prime Minister, crystal meth and something called "homosexual sex marriage". What the heck is a sex marriage anyways?
Anders is also the stereotypical
If that isn't enough, go to Hansard and grab the Connie's views on equal marriage and the separation of Church and state. Heady stuff.
Some people even went so far as to set up voteoutanders.com last election and appear to have have had an impact on both turn-out in the riding (it went up) and Anders vote (it went down).
Bottom line: these guys used public money to fund a portion of their campaigns. It's the sort of low-level corruption of the political process we should be trying to root out.
09 December 2005
SES and Gregg compared - some observations
Something has been bothering me all day about the Globe/CTV/Strategic Counsel claim that regional "weakness" in the Liberal support could make this a much closer race than it appears.
Later in the day, I saw Allan Gregg discussing the numbers for British Columbia. The Strategic Counsel poll shows the Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats in a near tie for public support.
I checked the margin of error (MoE) for the BC results only to find out it was +/- 7%, 19 times out of 20. The whole report is here, at thestrategiccounsel.com
Ok.
Check SES and let's compare them:
Gregg has the Liberals at 30, the Conservatives at 29, the NDP at 31, the Greens at 10, with an MoE at 7%.
SES shows Liberals at 42, CPC at 29, NDP at 23 and the Greens at 5 with an MoE of +/- 6.4%.
Right off the bat, I have some problem with Gregg basing his analysis on numbers with MoE of anything more than 3% plus or minus. Look at these polls and you'll see why - Gregg shows a near tie. SES shows the Liberals well ahead.
But, if you adjust the figures within the margin of error for both, you can easily produce a result that has the Liberals at 36, CPC at 29, NDP at 27 and the Greens running around 7.5%. All I did was split the difference on the numbers. That produces a result which is actually closer to the SES result than the Gregg dead heat scenario. The MoE is so high for both BC results, though, that I could just as easily produce a bunch of numbers that have the Liberals sweeping the place or tanking and still be fine.
BC may be the most dramatic example of this problem with the Gregg analysis, but there are similar variations in the other numbers. For example, Gregg's national figures have been consistently out of line with other polling, not just SES, sometimes by as much as four or more percentage points.
Theoretically, pollsters using similar methodologies should produce results within the margins of error. Trust me, when these guys were all polling during the spring, I used their research reports to illustrate polling methods to a class of students. A simple chart showed just how similar the numbers were, given the same time frames, for four or five separate firms.
For Gregg and Strategic Counsel, though, I haven't been able to come up with a good explanation for the anomalous numbers. Undoubtedly there is some statistician's reasoning but since I am not one of those, it escapes me.
Another part of the Gregg report released today also caused some concern, but for a different reason. On page five there's a lovely colourful graph of the Strategic Counsel's momentum analysis beginning in May. It shows, pretty clearly that the Conservative momentum has dropped, by Gregg's figures from 36 to 25, while the Liberals have climbed from 22 to 27.
That looks pretty straightforward - but if you look at the way the graph is constructed, it appears that the Liberals and Conservatives are so close as to be almost tied. The digits say one thing; the picture says another. And that's my problem.
The decline for the Conservatives is twice as big as the gain for the Liberals. By whatever methodology you want to use, therein lies a telling story at this stage of the campaign. Rather than try to talk about close races, the SC analysis could have easily pointed to a stalling of the Conservative campaign.
That analysis would marry up with the national voter choice figures, that have a small margin of error, and help people get a broader sense of what has occurred at the end of the second week of campaigning. That approach would also give the Connie bloggers something to think about instead of all sorts of feeble excuses for why their party isn't showing in the polls as they wished for, all year.
I am left wondering why Gregg chose the approach he did when there is another story in his own numbers.
As for the seat projections, I am reasonably comfortable in my belief that Gregg's comments today were not based on his own polling data alone. If you look at democraticSpace.com, you can see a rather complex seat projection model built on everyone's public polling. Sure enough it supports the idea that there may be a small Liberal majority even given the national polling numbers. But notice - he is basing his analysis on everyone's numbers. Gregg is showing just his own and then somehow producing the same analysis. It doesn't add up.
This certainly doesn't mean that Strategic Counsel is cooking the books. Far from it. Allan Gregg is a competent, professional opinion researcher. What may be happening here is that the pressure for news that is different - what the client is looking for - may be affecting what Gregg can toss up to talk about. It's a real-world issue and no one can fault Gregg for dealing with it. The national exposure he is getting is worth its weight in billable hours gold.
For those of us who are political junkies, though, this election coverage and the access to some fairly sophisticated polling results - as public results go - is like having your own meth-lab. We can fiddle with numbers, run seat projections and basically develop a picture of the world using the work of some of the best in the opinion research business.
There's also a good warning in all this for people who are wedded to one set of polling numbers: get a divorce, or at least negotiate an open marriage. In order to get an accurate picture of what is going on out there among the Canadian electorate, you have to take in as much data you can from as many sources as possible and then make your own assessment.
Even after decades of public opinion research, there are still perils in polling, as my old professor, Hugh Whelan, used to say.
Later in the day, I saw Allan Gregg discussing the numbers for British Columbia. The Strategic Counsel poll shows the Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats in a near tie for public support.
I checked the margin of error (MoE) for the BC results only to find out it was +/- 7%, 19 times out of 20. The whole report is here, at thestrategiccounsel.com
Ok.
Check SES and let's compare them:
Gregg has the Liberals at 30, the Conservatives at 29, the NDP at 31, the Greens at 10, with an MoE at 7%.
SES shows Liberals at 42, CPC at 29, NDP at 23 and the Greens at 5 with an MoE of +/- 6.4%.
Right off the bat, I have some problem with Gregg basing his analysis on numbers with MoE of anything more than 3% plus or minus. Look at these polls and you'll see why - Gregg shows a near tie. SES shows the Liberals well ahead.
But, if you adjust the figures within the margin of error for both, you can easily produce a result that has the Liberals at 36, CPC at 29, NDP at 27 and the Greens running around 7.5%. All I did was split the difference on the numbers. That produces a result which is actually closer to the SES result than the Gregg dead heat scenario. The MoE is so high for both BC results, though, that I could just as easily produce a bunch of numbers that have the Liberals sweeping the place or tanking and still be fine.
BC may be the most dramatic example of this problem with the Gregg analysis, but there are similar variations in the other numbers. For example, Gregg's national figures have been consistently out of line with other polling, not just SES, sometimes by as much as four or more percentage points.
Theoretically, pollsters using similar methodologies should produce results within the margins of error. Trust me, when these guys were all polling during the spring, I used their research reports to illustrate polling methods to a class of students. A simple chart showed just how similar the numbers were, given the same time frames, for four or five separate firms.
For Gregg and Strategic Counsel, though, I haven't been able to come up with a good explanation for the anomalous numbers. Undoubtedly there is some statistician's reasoning but since I am not one of those, it escapes me.
Another part of the Gregg report released today also caused some concern, but for a different reason. On page five there's a lovely colourful graph of the Strategic Counsel's momentum analysis beginning in May. It shows, pretty clearly that the Conservative momentum has dropped, by Gregg's figures from 36 to 25, while the Liberals have climbed from 22 to 27.
That looks pretty straightforward - but if you look at the way the graph is constructed, it appears that the Liberals and Conservatives are so close as to be almost tied. The digits say one thing; the picture says another. And that's my problem.
The decline for the Conservatives is twice as big as the gain for the Liberals. By whatever methodology you want to use, therein lies a telling story at this stage of the campaign. Rather than try to talk about close races, the SC analysis could have easily pointed to a stalling of the Conservative campaign.
That analysis would marry up with the national voter choice figures, that have a small margin of error, and help people get a broader sense of what has occurred at the end of the second week of campaigning. That approach would also give the Connie bloggers something to think about instead of all sorts of feeble excuses for why their party isn't showing in the polls as they wished for, all year.
I am left wondering why Gregg chose the approach he did when there is another story in his own numbers.
As for the seat projections, I am reasonably comfortable in my belief that Gregg's comments today were not based on his own polling data alone. If you look at democraticSpace.com, you can see a rather complex seat projection model built on everyone's public polling. Sure enough it supports the idea that there may be a small Liberal majority even given the national polling numbers. But notice - he is basing his analysis on everyone's numbers. Gregg is showing just his own and then somehow producing the same analysis. It doesn't add up.
This certainly doesn't mean that Strategic Counsel is cooking the books. Far from it. Allan Gregg is a competent, professional opinion researcher. What may be happening here is that the pressure for news that is different - what the client is looking for - may be affecting what Gregg can toss up to talk about. It's a real-world issue and no one can fault Gregg for dealing with it. The national exposure he is getting is worth its weight in billable hours gold.
For those of us who are political junkies, though, this election coverage and the access to some fairly sophisticated polling results - as public results go - is like having your own meth-lab. We can fiddle with numbers, run seat projections and basically develop a picture of the world using the work of some of the best in the opinion research business.
There's also a good warning in all this for people who are wedded to one set of polling numbers: get a divorce, or at least negotiate an open marriage. In order to get an accurate picture of what is going on out there among the Canadian electorate, you have to take in as much data you can from as many sources as possible and then make your own assessment.
Even after decades of public opinion research, there are still perils in polling, as my old professor, Hugh Whelan, used to say.
The seats to watch in Newfoundland and Labrador
E-mails arrive telling me I am off my rocker on the election in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Maybe I am.
For those who are interested here is an assessment by PoliticsWatch on the seats to watch in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Maybe I am.
For those who are interested here is an assessment by PoliticsWatch on the seats to watch in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Harpering the party
Conservative party organizers in Newfoundland and Labrador are reportedly looking at new ways of finding candidates.
SES results: Libs keep rockin'; Quebec undecided climbs
SES Research results of its rolling polls show that as of Thursday, The Liberals enjoy the support of 41% of decided voters, with the Conservatives down two points to 26%. The New Democrats are the choice of 18%.
Undecided was at 20% and the margin of error for the national figures is +/- 2.9%, at the 95th confidence interval.
Undecided in Quebec has risen to 28%, up from 11% on the first day of SES polling.
No one should get too excited by these numbers since there is a long way to go until voting day.
In the meantime, Connie bloggers continue to be confounded at the numbers. Albertaavenue goes so far as to claim that the polling firms don't release their methodology. Nice try, Alav, but they do.
Plunk the latest SES numbers into the Hill and Knowlton seat count predictor and here's what pops out:
Liberals: 166
Conservative: 63
NDP: 40
Bloc: 48
Other: 1
Personally, the real outcome would likely be somewhere between this result and the one projected by democraticSpace. Check out the methodology.
Click on the Newfoundland and Labrador results, though and you'll see that while democraticSpace is predicting a small Liberal minority, it is projecting a Liberal sweep of the province.
This is all good fun, but The Day is a way off yet. No one should be resting on any laurels.
Undecided was at 20% and the margin of error for the national figures is +/- 2.9%, at the 95th confidence interval.
Undecided in Quebec has risen to 28%, up from 11% on the first day of SES polling.
No one should get too excited by these numbers since there is a long way to go until voting day.
In the meantime, Connie bloggers continue to be confounded at the numbers. Albertaavenue goes so far as to claim that the polling firms don't release their methodology. Nice try, Alav, but they do.
Plunk the latest SES numbers into the Hill and Knowlton seat count predictor and here's what pops out:
Liberals: 166
Conservative: 63
NDP: 40
Bloc: 48
Other: 1
Personally, the real outcome would likely be somewhere between this result and the one projected by democraticSpace. Check out the methodology.
Click on the Newfoundland and Labrador results, though and you'll see that while democraticSpace is predicting a small Liberal minority, it is projecting a Liberal sweep of the province.
This is all good fun, but The Day is a way off yet. No one should be resting on any laurels.
Leger and SES agree
About 10 days into the campaign, pollsters SES and Leger Marketing show the current party standing with the Liberals in a 12 point lead over the Conservatives.
In Atlantic Canada, Leger is showing the Liberals at 47%, Conservatives 31% and New Democrats at 19%. That suggests the Liberals will hold onto their existing seats and may well pick up others from the Conservatives, especially in weak Connie spots like St. John's.
It seems strange to even say that the once might Conservative bastion is likely to go Liberal. How the mighty have fallen indeed!
Polls are only snapshots in time, but add them together and you can start to see a picture.
Even this early in what will be a long campaign, the picture emerging is not very good for Conservatives.
Expect a shift in their comms strategy any day now.
In Atlantic Canada, Leger is showing the Liberals at 47%, Conservatives 31% and New Democrats at 19%. That suggests the Liberals will hold onto their existing seats and may well pick up others from the Conservatives, especially in weak Connie spots like St. John's.
It seems strange to even say that the once might Conservative bastion is likely to go Liberal. How the mighty have fallen indeed!
Polls are only snapshots in time, but add them together and you can start to see a picture.
Even this early in what will be a long campaign, the picture emerging is not very good for Conservatives.
Expect a shift in their comms strategy any day now.
Another "tell"
Danny Williams explodes in anger and attacks the person, whenever a question gets close to the truth, not close to his family and friends.
That's his tell. The dead giveaway.
For the federal Connies - not Tories, that party died two years ago - the "tell" may well be the Sun chain.
Take a skim through the columnists online and look at all the columns that either praise Steve Harper (like the bitter Sheila Copps), attack Liberals (the ever-dyspeptic John "More TUMS" Crosbie), or in this case, the one where Greg Weston laments the hard position in which the Conservatives find themselves on an issue like gun control.
He does a fine job of claiming that the Prime Minister's announcement really isn't changing anything at all and is really designed to lure Conservatives into defending guns and being therefore, somehow, scary.
Geez, Greg. I love conspiracy theories. They make great movies - where the key ingredient is a suspension of disbelief. In the real world, there is much less conspiracy.
On the handgun issue, the Liberals have jumped in front of an issue in metro Toronto and did so on a day when news would be tuned to the 25th anniversary of John Lennon's shooting.
The positioning put the Liberals firmly in control of a Connie issue - law and order - and did so in a way that grabbed extra support from recollections of a tragedy involving a nutbar and a handgun.
That's smart politics.
The Connies only find themselves thinking about their position because they got outflanked. The instinct will be to argue against gun control which, as the recent policy convention showed, is where the majority of Connie delegates were headed. They took out a simple statement in favour of the sort of licensing system this country has had for rifles and shotguns since the 1970s and for handguns since the 1930s. In its place would be a "screening system" that in all likelihood will have some pretty big mesh in the screen.
At the end, the Conservatives are left pretty much as they were headed. Polls clearly show the public doesn't trust Stephen Harper when he tells them that Connies have moved to the centre on social policy issues (except for equal marriage). Unable to think outside the box, the Connie strategists keep putting front and centre one Stephen Harper, the embodiment of Canadians unease about the Connies.
So they suffer at the polls.
And rely on shop-worn messages that the Liberals are all about spin.
Then Paul Martin announces a policy on a precious Connie cause and take control of an issue that used to be purely a conservative one. Gun control appeals in urban Canada and while it sometimes ruffles in rural areas, this particular ban won't affect too many.
It will also resonate with people in places like Newfoundland and Labrador. The reason is simple. Handguns, restricted but legal weapons - Weston is wrong on that point - are seized at the home of a young man in St. John's. Tazers, a prohibited weapon, turn up in another police search.
In other words, as much as Connies will claim that legitimate handgun owners are the only ones to suffer under a ban, the truth is that the once safe system of handgun ownership in this country is slowly crumbling.
Legally acquired handguns are finding their way to the underworld through thefts or loss.
And that's what makes a simple "screening system" totally inadequate to address the criminal use of firearms - both illegally obtained ones and legally purchased ones that are diverted to the streets.
There are still many ways to refine Canada's gun control system but the Conservative Party policy, heavily influenced by a handful of anti-gun control types is not the way to go.
On this issue, the tell to watch is not only in the reaction of the Connie-friendly media. It's also in the movement in the polls.
That's the "tell" of public opinion, the one that will count in January.
That's his tell. The dead giveaway.
For the federal Connies - not Tories, that party died two years ago - the "tell" may well be the Sun chain.
Take a skim through the columnists online and look at all the columns that either praise Steve Harper (like the bitter Sheila Copps), attack Liberals (the ever-dyspeptic John "More TUMS" Crosbie), or in this case, the one where Greg Weston laments the hard position in which the Conservatives find themselves on an issue like gun control.
He does a fine job of claiming that the Prime Minister's announcement really isn't changing anything at all and is really designed to lure Conservatives into defending guns and being therefore, somehow, scary.
Geez, Greg. I love conspiracy theories. They make great movies - where the key ingredient is a suspension of disbelief. In the real world, there is much less conspiracy.
On the handgun issue, the Liberals have jumped in front of an issue in metro Toronto and did so on a day when news would be tuned to the 25th anniversary of John Lennon's shooting.
The positioning put the Liberals firmly in control of a Connie issue - law and order - and did so in a way that grabbed extra support from recollections of a tragedy involving a nutbar and a handgun.
That's smart politics.
The Connies only find themselves thinking about their position because they got outflanked. The instinct will be to argue against gun control which, as the recent policy convention showed, is where the majority of Connie delegates were headed. They took out a simple statement in favour of the sort of licensing system this country has had for rifles and shotguns since the 1970s and for handguns since the 1930s. In its place would be a "screening system" that in all likelihood will have some pretty big mesh in the screen.
At the end, the Conservatives are left pretty much as they were headed. Polls clearly show the public doesn't trust Stephen Harper when he tells them that Connies have moved to the centre on social policy issues (except for equal marriage). Unable to think outside the box, the Connie strategists keep putting front and centre one Stephen Harper, the embodiment of Canadians unease about the Connies.
So they suffer at the polls.
And rely on shop-worn messages that the Liberals are all about spin.
Then Paul Martin announces a policy on a precious Connie cause and take control of an issue that used to be purely a conservative one. Gun control appeals in urban Canada and while it sometimes ruffles in rural areas, this particular ban won't affect too many.
It will also resonate with people in places like Newfoundland and Labrador. The reason is simple. Handguns, restricted but legal weapons - Weston is wrong on that point - are seized at the home of a young man in St. John's. Tazers, a prohibited weapon, turn up in another police search.
In other words, as much as Connies will claim that legitimate handgun owners are the only ones to suffer under a ban, the truth is that the once safe system of handgun ownership in this country is slowly crumbling.
Legally acquired handguns are finding their way to the underworld through thefts or loss.
And that's what makes a simple "screening system" totally inadequate to address the criminal use of firearms - both illegally obtained ones and legally purchased ones that are diverted to the streets.
There are still many ways to refine Canada's gun control system but the Conservative Party policy, heavily influenced by a handful of anti-gun control types is not the way to go.
On this issue, the tell to watch is not only in the reaction of the Connie-friendly media. It's also in the movement in the polls.
That's the "tell" of public opinion, the one that will count in January.
Jack Layton: Different town; different message
In Ontario ridings, Jack Layton told voters to ignore third place candidates (who happened to be Liberal), warning that a vote for the third place is a vote for the Conservatives.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, where Jack is having a hard time finding candidates and where the ones nominated are way back in third place, Jack has a different tune.
Everyone can change their mind, but we are talking a matter of days here. Perhaps we need a Clarity Act to require the New Democrat boss to say the same thing everywhere he goes within the same election.
In the meantime, Deborah Coyne is on the ground in Toronto-Danforth knocking doors and taking names.
Ask Mulroney, Jack.
You that's one Coyne you don't want on your ass.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, where Jack is having a hard time finding candidates and where the ones nominated are way back in third place, Jack has a different tune.
Everyone can change their mind, but we are talking a matter of days here. Perhaps we need a Clarity Act to require the New Democrat boss to say the same thing everywhere he goes within the same election.
In the meantime, Deborah Coyne is on the ground in Toronto-Danforth knocking doors and taking names.
Ask Mulroney, Jack.
You that's one Coyne you don't want on your ass.
08 December 2005
Connie gun control
At its convention in March of this year, the Conservative Party delegates were asked to vote on a gun control motion that would provide:
- mandatory minimum sentences for the criminal use of firearms;
- strict monitoring of high-risk individuals;
- crackdown on the smuggling [this incomplete/poorly translated phrase survived into the actual policy manual];
- safe storage laws [we already have this];
- firearms safety training [we already have this];
- a licensing system for all those wishing to acquire and use firearms legally [we already have this];
- and putting more law enforcement officers on our streets."
The motion that made it into policy manual changed one bit: the bit about the licensing system, which we effectively already have and which has been in place for the better part of the last 25 years.
Instead, the section was changed to read "a certification screening program..."
No one knows what that means, but the implication is that the level of firearms ownership control we have had in this country since the early 1980s and beforehand would be reduced down to something far less burdensome for everyone - law-abiding gun owners and criminals alike.
That's what I posted before on this and by gosh, by gum, I am sticking to the interpretation that the Conservative Party policy manual actually appears to call for an elimination of licenses for firearms owners. Instead, they'll just have to clear a screening program of some kind.
Experience in Canada shows that deaths attributable to firearms are about half the rate they were 25 years ago. The rate of deaths per 100, 000 females dropped from 1.2 in 1979 to a mere 0.3.
Our current gun control laws work. Stengthening them makes sense.
Rolling back the clock, as the Conservative policy suggests, doesn't make any sense.
Unless you take your public policy advice from Ben Hur.
Res ipsa loquitur, as the lawyers say.
The facts speak for themselves.
- mandatory minimum sentences for the criminal use of firearms;
- strict monitoring of high-risk individuals;
- crackdown on the smuggling [this incomplete/poorly translated phrase survived into the actual policy manual];
- safe storage laws [we already have this];
- firearms safety training [we already have this];
- a licensing system for all those wishing to acquire and use firearms legally [we already have this];
- and putting more law enforcement officers on our streets."
The motion that made it into policy manual changed one bit: the bit about the licensing system, which we effectively already have and which has been in place for the better part of the last 25 years.
Instead, the section was changed to read "a certification screening program..."
No one knows what that means, but the implication is that the level of firearms ownership control we have had in this country since the early 1980s and beforehand would be reduced down to something far less burdensome for everyone - law-abiding gun owners and criminals alike.
That's what I posted before on this and by gosh, by gum, I am sticking to the interpretation that the Conservative Party policy manual actually appears to call for an elimination of licenses for firearms owners. Instead, they'll just have to clear a screening program of some kind.
Experience in Canada shows that deaths attributable to firearms are about half the rate they were 25 years ago. The rate of deaths per 100, 000 females dropped from 1.2 in 1979 to a mere 0.3.
Our current gun control laws work. Stengthening them makes sense.
Rolling back the clock, as the Conservative policy suggests, doesn't make any sense.
Unless you take your public policy advice from Ben Hur.
Res ipsa loquitur, as the lawyers say.
The facts speak for themselves.
Pollster or astrologer?
You can find some truly wacky things online these days, whether it is Liberal Warren Kinsella busily working to defeat the Liberals or this story from politicwatch.com in which a Sudbury pollster predicts a majority Conservative government.
The basis for his prognostication? A gut feeling.
Apparently, he missed the tea leaves that morning and his Kerlian photography kit was on the fritz so he couldn't get an accurate reading of the political "aura".
I have a gut feeling too when I read this sort of crap commentary from a supposedly professional pollster. But it's not the kind of feeling I feel comfortable discussing in polite company. Even Imodium wouldn't handle it.
In the meantime, both Strategic Counsel and SES are producing polls with results in the same general neighbourhood. SES numbers up to 6 December show the Liberals on the way to a majority government.
Plug them into the seat predictor at Hill and Knowlton.
E-mail the results to your Connie friends and watch them develop apoplexy.
The basis for his prognostication? A gut feeling.
Apparently, he missed the tea leaves that morning and his Kerlian photography kit was on the fritz so he couldn't get an accurate reading of the political "aura".
I have a gut feeling too when I read this sort of crap commentary from a supposedly professional pollster. But it's not the kind of feeling I feel comfortable discussing in polite company. Even Imodium wouldn't handle it.
In the meantime, both Strategic Counsel and SES are producing polls with results in the same general neighbourhood. SES numbers up to 6 December show the Liberals on the way to a majority government.
Plug them into the seat predictor at Hill and Knowlton.
E-mail the results to your Connie friends and watch them develop apoplexy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)