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.
10 December 2005
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.
Lowest common denominator school politics
God invented schools.
Then God invented school administration.
Then God took the brains to manage school administration away from anyone connected with the eastern school authorities in Newfoundland.
This report is the umpteenth kick at the cat for local school bureaucrats. Many of the ideas are old ones that reflect the sort of idiocy that only can come from academic bureaucrats who define a neighbourhood school as one in which their computer program drops your kid across town, even if the actual neighbourhood school is about a couple of hundred feet away from your back door.
Like the one to keep two schools across the street from each other and have one a K-3 school and the other a 4-6 school.
School board planners and the consultant hired to produce this report obviously never did a course in traffic management.
Tough decisions - but necessary ones - are not going to get made. Yet again.
Meanwhile the Minister of Education has been well-briefed. She is following the same pattern as her predecessors. She wants to scrap the plan and, likely, keep everything much as it is.
Then God invented school administration.
Then God took the brains to manage school administration away from anyone connected with the eastern school authorities in Newfoundland.
This report is the umpteenth kick at the cat for local school bureaucrats. Many of the ideas are old ones that reflect the sort of idiocy that only can come from academic bureaucrats who define a neighbourhood school as one in which their computer program drops your kid across town, even if the actual neighbourhood school is about a couple of hundred feet away from your back door.
Like the one to keep two schools across the street from each other and have one a K-3 school and the other a 4-6 school.
School board planners and the consultant hired to produce this report obviously never did a course in traffic management.
Tough decisions - but necessary ones - are not going to get made. Yet again.
Meanwhile the Minister of Education has been well-briefed. She is following the same pattern as her predecessors. She wants to scrap the plan and, likely, keep everything much as it is.
The good old days
Is it only 15 years ago that a Conservative government introduced gun control measures that were considered draconian at the time?
Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell. Closets of Gucci loafers replaced by a wild campaign in which the PM reportedly spent most of the time on her tour bus steaming up the back windows with her boyfriend.
*sigh*
Those were the days.
Prime Minister Paul Martin today announced plans to ban ownership of handguns except for police, some security firms and the military.
Steve Harper said the plan wouldn't crack down on illegal gun imports or impose harsher sentences for gun crime.
Now if this site is correct from some guy named Bruce Montague, the Conservative Party policy forum earlier this year actually removed a section calling for firearms owners to be licensed.
I doubt that Brian and Kim would consider that to be good policy, Steve, especially when you are quoted as supporting the record of past Conservative governments on gun control.
Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell. Closets of Gucci loafers replaced by a wild campaign in which the PM reportedly spent most of the time on her tour bus steaming up the back windows with her boyfriend.
*sigh*
Those were the days.
Prime Minister Paul Martin today announced plans to ban ownership of handguns except for police, some security firms and the military.
Steve Harper said the plan wouldn't crack down on illegal gun imports or impose harsher sentences for gun crime.
Now if this site is correct from some guy named Bruce Montague, the Conservative Party policy forum earlier this year actually removed a section calling for firearms owners to be licensed.
I doubt that Brian and Kim would consider that to be good policy, Steve, especially when you are quoted as supporting the record of past Conservative governments on gun control.
MacKay eyes Harper's job, post-election
Blonde, wealthy, well-connected.
Peter MacKay's latest love interest, according to well-known gossip sheet the NationalLampoon Post:
Sophie Desmarais. Of that Desmarais clan. They met courtesy of Mila Mulroney. Sophie's clan is tight with Liberals like Jean Chretien.
Way to go, Peter.
Now, just a few weeks to go before you can start the campaign to boot Harper and take his job.
As reminiscent of medieval Italian politics as this all seems, Peter might have learned to be a little less obvious. Nicolo would not be pleased.
Peter MacKay's latest love interest, according to well-known gossip sheet the National
Sophie Desmarais. Of that Desmarais clan. They met courtesy of Mila Mulroney. Sophie's clan is tight with Liberals like Jean Chretien.
Way to go, Peter.
Now, just a few weeks to go before you can start the campaign to boot Harper and take his job.
As reminiscent of medieval Italian politics as this all seems, Peter might have learned to be a little less obvious. Nicolo would not be pleased.
Custodial management almost impossible to deliver
Memorial University political science prof David Close threw some cold water on people who think "custodial management" is a simple answer to fisheries problems.
Close said while CM is easy to advocate it is almost impossible to achieve. He said it is not at all clear that Canada could unilaterally lay claim to waters outside the 200 mile exclusive economic zone.
If that isn't good enough for you, there's a slightly different view from the dean of the Dalhousie law school. it adds up to the same thing, though: CM is easy to say but hard to do.
Close said while CM is easy to advocate it is almost impossible to achieve. He said it is not at all clear that Canada could unilaterally lay claim to waters outside the 200 mile exclusive economic zone.
If that isn't good enough for you, there's a slightly different view from the dean of the Dalhousie law school. it adds up to the same thing, though: CM is easy to say but hard to do.
Moving forward is good enough for the Premier
It should be good enough for Liam over at RGL.
Apparently not.
He preferred to quote people from American political action groups to argue against government-funded child care outside the home for families where both parents work. Of course, he didn't see fit to disclose who these people actually were and the political action committees they work for.
Well, here's what Danny Williams had to say back in May when the province and federal government signed an agreement on early childhood education and child care:
"Making sure that our youngest citizens get the best start in life is one of the most important priorities for parents and families in our province," said Premier Williams. "This agreement signed today will help Newfoundland and Labrador achieve its long-term vision to ensure children and families have access to a quality early learning and child care system and that early child care educators and providers receive the training and supports they need."
And for the record, here's what finance minister Loyola Sullivan said in the same announcement:
"Our government has made significant progress in building capacity, ensuring children and families have access to quality programming and improving the quality of early learning and child care in Newfoundland and Labrador," said Minister Sullivan. " We are committed to building a progressive early learning and child care program to complement the work of our Ministerial Council on Early Childhood Learning that focuses on the learning needs of children and their families. As we move forward, we will continue to consult with parents and early learning and childcare stakeholders to assist in developing the action plan for Newfoundland and Labrador."
Here are two Canadians - Progressive Conservatives and political leaders at that - who don't see anything sinister in the government providing funding for quality childcare outside the home as well as funding new initiatives in early childhood education.
Hmmmm.
Now of course, they aren't early childhood education and childcare experts, but ya know, I'd put a lot more faith in their judgment on this issue than a bunch of political activists who had obscured identities if not obscured agendas.
As for Liam, he needn't worry about someone trying to create what he calls a "Nanny" state. He's the only one talking about that nonsense.
Instead, he just needs to take a breath and get over his morbid fear of Fran Drescher.
Apparently not.
He preferred to quote people from American political action groups to argue against government-funded child care outside the home for families where both parents work. Of course, he didn't see fit to disclose who these people actually were and the political action committees they work for.
Well, here's what Danny Williams had to say back in May when the province and federal government signed an agreement on early childhood education and child care:
"Making sure that our youngest citizens get the best start in life is one of the most important priorities for parents and families in our province," said Premier Williams. "This agreement signed today will help Newfoundland and Labrador achieve its long-term vision to ensure children and families have access to a quality early learning and child care system and that early child care educators and providers receive the training and supports they need."
And for the record, here's what finance minister Loyola Sullivan said in the same announcement:
"Our government has made significant progress in building capacity, ensuring children and families have access to quality programming and improving the quality of early learning and child care in Newfoundland and Labrador," said Minister Sullivan. " We are committed to building a progressive early learning and child care program to complement the work of our Ministerial Council on Early Childhood Learning that focuses on the learning needs of children and their families. As we move forward, we will continue to consult with parents and early learning and childcare stakeholders to assist in developing the action plan for Newfoundland and Labrador."
Here are two Canadians - Progressive Conservatives and political leaders at that - who don't see anything sinister in the government providing funding for quality childcare outside the home as well as funding new initiatives in early childhood education.
Hmmmm.
Now of course, they aren't early childhood education and childcare experts, but ya know, I'd put a lot more faith in their judgment on this issue than a bunch of political activists who had obscured identities if not obscured agendas.
As for Liam, he needn't worry about someone trying to create what he calls a "Nanny" state. He's the only one talking about that nonsense.
Instead, he just needs to take a breath and get over his morbid fear of Fran Drescher.
Coast Guard tragedy
Two Coast Guard employees were killed yesterday in an incident that is still under investigation.
It appears they were traveling by helicopter between sites, conducting routine maintenance of navigation aides on the south coast of Newfoundland when the incident occurred.
The two employees were flying in a Coast Guard MBB 105, like the one pictured.
Methinks he doth protest too much
Danny Williams likes to use sales jargon, like talking about "the ask".
Well, in sales as in poker, there's a thing called "the tell". It's something that gives away the truth, despite the apparent demeanor of the other person.
Whenever anyone asks Danny Williams a question he doesn't like - that is one that comes close to the truth - he immediately turns into attack mode. He lashes out and accuses his questioner of all sorts of evil motives.
That form of personal attack, while rather entertaining to watch is actually the weakest form of argument.
And it is noticeable that when you strike close to the truth, Williams gets personal.
All the time.
It isn't just that a question is about someone close to his family, and therefore he's defending his relatives. Williams has a noticeable tendency to employ people close to his family, so much so that it's become a bit of a joke at Confederation Building, in fact. he lashes out whenever someone is getting close to the real reason for some action.
Danny Williams didn't like questions yesterday about the hiring of his daughter's fiance as a communications director with the Department of Justice. Before that, the man was a staffer in the Government Members' Office. Beyond that, no one knows what his background is.
There was no competition for the position.
The Premier lashed out at the guy asking the question - Roland Butler - who was involved in a hiring scandal several years ago. Under a different Premier, Butler's boss and others paid a price for the incident.
But the question yesterday focused on the Premier's future son-in-law, whom the Premier described in this way:
"This government has hired this bright, capable, qualified, young man in a temporary position, which is a perfectly legal thing to do and which the members opposite know is according to the rules and according to the rules of the Public Service Commission. So, he was hired in a temporary position and he is eminently qualified and that is according to law and according to rules. Shame on you!"
My questions for the Premier are simple:
1. Would the Premier please make public Bill Hickey's resume?
If he is so eminently qualified for the position, then it should be obvious why he was appointed into a position without a competition.
2. As for the competition currently underway for communications directors, would the Premier assure that it will be run fairly - not like other Public Service Commission competitions - so that incumbents, like Mr. Hickey, do not have an unfair advantage over other, eminently qualified candidates?
The questions are simple.
The replies should be equally simple.
Let's see if we can get them.
Well, in sales as in poker, there's a thing called "the tell". It's something that gives away the truth, despite the apparent demeanor of the other person.
Whenever anyone asks Danny Williams a question he doesn't like - that is one that comes close to the truth - he immediately turns into attack mode. He lashes out and accuses his questioner of all sorts of evil motives.
That form of personal attack, while rather entertaining to watch is actually the weakest form of argument.
And it is noticeable that when you strike close to the truth, Williams gets personal.
All the time.
It isn't just that a question is about someone close to his family, and therefore he's defending his relatives. Williams has a noticeable tendency to employ people close to his family, so much so that it's become a bit of a joke at Confederation Building, in fact. he lashes out whenever someone is getting close to the real reason for some action.
Danny Williams didn't like questions yesterday about the hiring of his daughter's fiance as a communications director with the Department of Justice. Before that, the man was a staffer in the Government Members' Office. Beyond that, no one knows what his background is.
There was no competition for the position.
The Premier lashed out at the guy asking the question - Roland Butler - who was involved in a hiring scandal several years ago. Under a different Premier, Butler's boss and others paid a price for the incident.
But the question yesterday focused on the Premier's future son-in-law, whom the Premier described in this way:
"This government has hired this bright, capable, qualified, young man in a temporary position, which is a perfectly legal thing to do and which the members opposite know is according to the rules and according to the rules of the Public Service Commission. So, he was hired in a temporary position and he is eminently qualified and that is according to law and according to rules. Shame on you!"
My questions for the Premier are simple:
1. Would the Premier please make public Bill Hickey's resume?
If he is so eminently qualified for the position, then it should be obvious why he was appointed into a position without a competition.
2. As for the competition currently underway for communications directors, would the Premier assure that it will be run fairly - not like other Public Service Commission competitions - so that incumbents, like Mr. Hickey, do not have an unfair advantage over other, eminently qualified candidates?
The questions are simple.
The replies should be equally simple.
Let's see if we can get them.
07 December 2005
Liam quotes the American right to back Harper
In one of several megaposts lately, Liam O'Brien at RGL quoted someone named Darcy Ann Olsen, who is presented as an expert commentator on child care issues.
The link is to an outfit called The Heartland Institute. Here's some background on Heartland, courtesy of the Centre for Media and Democracy. There's another link to another article from heartland in the same piece.
It's pretty bad when you have to go to American conservative sources to bolster your arguments and neglect to point out where the quotes and comments are coming from in order to make your case.
Liam notes the Olsen piece was originally printed in a publication from the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. Now this isn't a professional association for public policy types and government relations people, like the links I have on my right hand navigation bar. Nope. OCPA is the kind of group that picks Newt Gingrich as their 2006 Citizenship Award nominee.
Liam also quotes April Lassiter, who used to be a speechwriter and policy wonk for Tom Delay before heading off to the right-wing Heritage Foundation as a research fellow.
The article is a predictable one for Liam since it praises the Conservatives to the hilt and uses American conservatives to bolster much of his argument. Unfortunately, Liam won't tell you the full picture on the "authorities" he cites.
And yes he does quote a couple of polls. Frankly, as a parent of two young children, I'd like to work half time, spend more time with my children and make the same family income in some fashion. The problem with Liam's statistics is that he doesn't give you the full picture.
The 1950s model of an idyllic family disappeared with the Connie. If one member of a couple wants to devote full-time to child care these days, odds are good that the family will take a major-league hit in the bank account.
Stephen Harper's $1, 200 only applies to children under six years old and it is taxable at the full rate. For a lot of us, that money will vanish back to Ottawa through taxes.
Odd that for a party supposedly interested in supporting choice in child care and making it easier for couples to have one partner stay at home and devote full attention to child care even in the early years, I don't recall ever hearing the Conservatives support parental and maternity benefits under the Employment Insurance system being 100% of wages for a half-year or a year. Nope.
And of course, the partner's have to be of opposite sex, at least after the free vote Harper wants.
No political party has mentioned the kind of EI changes I referred to, but something tells me I'd stand a better chance of having such a policy adopted under Liberals or new Democrats than under a bunch of people who tout "choice" and throw 1200 bucks on the table.
The people who want to have a free vote in the House of Commons to overturn constitutional rights.
I doubt the sincerity of their child care effort.
As for child care spaces and early childhood education, those spaces exist and the money is there to create more.
With the Liberals.
The link is to an outfit called The Heartland Institute. Here's some background on Heartland, courtesy of the Centre for Media and Democracy. There's another link to another article from heartland in the same piece.
It's pretty bad when you have to go to American conservative sources to bolster your arguments and neglect to point out where the quotes and comments are coming from in order to make your case.
Liam notes the Olsen piece was originally printed in a publication from the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. Now this isn't a professional association for public policy types and government relations people, like the links I have on my right hand navigation bar. Nope. OCPA is the kind of group that picks Newt Gingrich as their 2006 Citizenship Award nominee.
Liam also quotes April Lassiter, who used to be a speechwriter and policy wonk for Tom Delay before heading off to the right-wing Heritage Foundation as a research fellow.
The article is a predictable one for Liam since it praises the Conservatives to the hilt and uses American conservatives to bolster much of his argument. Unfortunately, Liam won't tell you the full picture on the "authorities" he cites.
And yes he does quote a couple of polls. Frankly, as a parent of two young children, I'd like to work half time, spend more time with my children and make the same family income in some fashion. The problem with Liam's statistics is that he doesn't give you the full picture.
The 1950s model of an idyllic family disappeared with the Connie. If one member of a couple wants to devote full-time to child care these days, odds are good that the family will take a major-league hit in the bank account.
Stephen Harper's $1, 200 only applies to children under six years old and it is taxable at the full rate. For a lot of us, that money will vanish back to Ottawa through taxes.
Odd that for a party supposedly interested in supporting choice in child care and making it easier for couples to have one partner stay at home and devote full attention to child care even in the early years, I don't recall ever hearing the Conservatives support parental and maternity benefits under the Employment Insurance system being 100% of wages for a half-year or a year. Nope.
And of course, the partner's have to be of opposite sex, at least after the free vote Harper wants.
No political party has mentioned the kind of EI changes I referred to, but something tells me I'd stand a better chance of having such a policy adopted under Liberals or new Democrats than under a bunch of people who tout "choice" and throw 1200 bucks on the table.
The people who want to have a free vote in the House of Commons to overturn constitutional rights.
I doubt the sincerity of their child care effort.
As for child care spaces and early childhood education, those spaces exist and the money is there to create more.
With the Liberals.
The Battle Song of the Newfoundlanders
Courtesy of an old friend and sometimes e-mail commentator comes this link about a recent event involving HMCS Cabot, the naval reserve division in Newfoundland and Labrador.
His Honour Edward Roberts, Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador presented a poster, printed in the 1950s commemorating the military and naval history of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians from earliest times to the Korean Conflict.
Thanks, Tony. The e-mails are always welcome and never frequent enough.
His Honour Edward Roberts, Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador presented a poster, printed in the 1950s commemorating the military and naval history of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians from earliest times to the Korean Conflict.
Thanks, Tony. The e-mails are always welcome and never frequent enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)