18 December 2005

Dyspepsia 101

Over at the Sun chain, the Conservative party campaign chair in Atlantic Canada still gets his column to spew his unique views about unfulfilled political promises.

That tells you something about the Sun's views on fairness and balance in its editorial pages. For the record, a dyspeptic former Liberal cabinet minister doesn't balance off an active campaigner like Crosbie.

John Crosbie, the former federal overlord in Newfoundland and Labrador, seems to forget his 1979 federal budget. There was no promise of a gasoline excise tax in the 1979 campaign, but Crosbie walloped taxpayers with an 18 cent a gallon excise tax on it just the same.

Stephen Harper - the guy who appointed Crosbie to the campaign chair job - called that stupid.

According to Jeff Simpson's The discipline of power, Crosbie originally wanted a 30 cent a gallon hike in taxes.

Meanwhile, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians continue to deal with the folly of Joe Smallwood at Stephenville and the subsequent folly of his successor Conservative government with Crosbie as finance minister that nationalized the Upper Churchill project and the Stephenville linerboard mill.

Was that short term political gain for long-term taxpayer pain, John?

NDP minor uptick: SES CPAC polling

Heading into the Christmas lull in campaigning, the Liberals remain ahead of the Conservatives, according to SES/CPAC's nightly rolling polls, but the New Democrats have scored a minor increase in their support.

"“Early results indicate that NDP support is moving upward from its low of 12%. Likewise, Jack Layton'’s daily performance index score improved the most last night (+11) largely driven on positive numbers related to trust. CPAC-SES tracking has the Liberals at 38% nationally, followed by the Conservatives at 30%, the NDP at 15%, the BQ at 13% and the Green Party at 4%."” - Nik Nanos, President, SES Research.

Overall, though, the Liberals remain in front at 38% followed by the Conservatives at 30%, with 17% of respondents undecided.

More people are unsure of who would make the best prime minister than chose Stephen Harper, while Paul Martin continues to score substantially ahead of Harper on the SES leadership index.

Bourque = berk ?

There are more links to anti-Liberal columns and stories in the Sun chain from website meister Bourque, that one ponders if Bourque is French for berk.

The Harper "Lock up yer brain" Tour

A battalion in every town.

Cash for children.

Cash for jocks.

Cash for everyone.

And now, the completely inane idea that if the Americans don't knock off being so difficult on the softwood lumber thing, Stephen Harper will replace the United States as Canada's major trading partner.

Since this story is printed in the National Lampoon Post, it's hard to take seriously, but apparently Stevie will promise Canadians anything, no matter how insane it is, if he thinks it will buy their vote.

I like to call it the Stevie Harper "Lock up your brain" Tour.

It should come as no surprise that the United States is considering a fence along its northern border, as Canadian Press is reporting. The goal is to apparently keep our right-wing mad cows from infecting their right-wing cows.

Given Harper's campaign, you can see the point.

16 December 2005

Harper: I'm with stupid!

(Left) Latest item from the Connie eboutique is inspired by Stephen Harper's recent comments on John Crosbie's 1979 budget. Like Crosbie and the two leading Harper candidates in Newfoundland and Labrador, the t-shirt is a throwback to the 1970s.

By the way, in case you didn't know, Harper said "You can be principled without being stupid." The Crosbie budget toppled the Clark government.

So far, no media outlet has sought out the dyspeptic former Mulroney strongman in the province to see how stupid he feels now.

My guess is Crosbie is feeling pretty dumb, having taken the job of Atlantic campaign chair for the Harper Conservatives just days before Harper kicked Crosbie in the crotch in front of champagne sipping reporters on Con-Air, the Harper campaign plane.

What Harper was talking about, apparently was the 18 cent per gallon excise tax on gasoline that Crosbie stuck in his budget to raise cash.

I guess Harper never read Jeffrey Simpson's Discipline of Power.

Crosbie originally wanted an excise tax that would have raised the price of gas 30 cents a gallon.

If 18 cents was stupid, I'd like to know what Harper would think of that.

15 December 2005

Double DARTed defence statement

Defence policy is one of my areas of interest so Stephen Harper's statement in Trenton the other day drew my attention for several reasons.

Harper talked of wanting to double the size of the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) and the purchase of at least three large transport aircraft, likely American-built C-17s.

The official National Defence backgrounder on the DART gives some idea of the unit's composition. Note that on the deployment to Sri Lanka it too five chartered Antonov AN-124 lift aircraft to move the unit of 200 personnel and equipment to the theatre of operations.

Hmmm.

The AN-124 (left) is big aircraft. It carries a maximum payload of 330, 695 lbs in a cargo space that is 119 feet long, 20 feet wide and 14 feet high.



By contrast, the C-17 (right) has a maximum payload of 170, 900 lbs carried in a cargo compartment measuring about 85 feet long by 18 feet wide by 12 to 13 feet high.


Now, if it took five bigger aircraft to carry the existing DART to a mission, why would Stephen Harper speak of buying only three smaller aircraft to fly twice as many soldiers and equipment?
Just a rough guess is that it would take 12-18 C-17s to carry the DART without resorting to multiple long-range sorties. Each C-17 costs upwards of $300 million per aircraft to buy, not including the annual operating costs and the price for spares and additional support.

That looks like about $3.6 billion just to buy the aircraft, or more than double the amount Stephen Harper pledged for three new aircraft plus an infantry battalion, plus whatever else he lumped in there.

There's something else about the Trenton announcement that doesn't ring true.

Roll of the dice, part deux

Those who recall Meech Lake will remember Brian Mulroney's interview before the final votes in which he boasted of the scheme he had implemented to put the provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, and Manitoba in a hard spot.

It infuriated the public for its sheer arrogance.

Today's Toronto Star contains a similar episode from Stephen Harper. It comes in the same context: a federal Conservative leader, relaxed with news reporters and speaking freely in the context of his self-confidence.

Among the people indirectly slagged by Harper is our very own dyspeptic former federal gauleiter, John Crosbie. Speaking about the Crosbie budget that precipitated the fall of the Clark government in 1979, Harper said: "You can be principled without being stupid."

As much as I might disagree with Mr. Crosbie on a range of issues, stupid sure isn't one of the words I'd ever use to describe him

Scott Reid: your gaffe has been supplanted by one of infinitely greater implications.

Harper: There are more votes in Trenton, than Labrador

Stephen Harper unveiled his party's defence policy the other day at Canadian Forces Base Trenton.

On the beautiful Bay of Quinte.

in Ontario.

Mr. Harper's policy is to do everything the Liberals are planning to do with a couple of exceptions.

Mr. Harper will double the size of the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART). This is really a bit of nonsense. The DART can be tailored to meet the emergency need; it's inherently a flexible concept. A group of soldiers is tasked to provide the main resources. If more are needed, the core group could be doubled or tripled in size from existing resources with the Canadian Forces.

Mr. Harper also plans to purchase three C-17 type strategic lift aircraft. He plans to do this even though they aren't really needed by Canada, are expensive to operate and, given the small number he plans to buy, really wouldn't do much more than Canada can already accomplish now at lower cost. Back in January, Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier said he was putting a stop to endless studies of aircraft that Canada couldn't afford.

Of course, these new planes will be based in Trenton, where the announcement was made.

He will continue with Liberal plans to buy new transport aircraft and new search and rescue aircraft. Some of these will be based in Trenton, of course.

Mr. Harper will also continue with plans to create a special operations battalion affiliated with the JTF 2 special forces battalion currently based at Dwyer Hill.

This is where the whole announcement appears to turn into a movable pork-fest.

Last summer, when there was a by-election in Labrador, Mr. Harper's defence spokesperson Gordon O'Connor promised the battalion would be headed for Goose Bay under a Conservative government.

He was pretty clear about it too back in May 2005, when he talked about creating a new rapid reaction battalion and basing it in Goose Bay.

The newly re-christened battalion of 650 soldiers were always likely to have gone somewhere in Ontario - Trenton happens to be where the Canadian Forces Parachuting Centre is and where the aircraft are located.

But that's not what Gordo said at the time.

Make no mistake about it:

The C-17s are pure political pork aimed at voters in the Trenton area.

Make no mistake:

The double DART is a hollow promise.

Make no mistake about it:

Labrador's battalion has been renamed and shuffled off to serve as electoral cannon fodder in the vote-wars around Trenton.

The question is: were Gordo and Stephen bullshitting the people of Labrador back in June?

My guess is yes. There are likely more Conservative votes in Trenton than there are in Labrador, where the Conservatives have yet to find anyone willing to challenge incumbent Todd Russell.

Oh yes, for anyone who thinks the Conservatives will create two battalions - just note this story from the Globe and Mail. It ran just a handful of days before Harper's announcement. Even in the most optimistic projections, Canadian Forces recruiting this year will fall over 900 people short of target. For those who want to do the calculation, that's the better part of two infantry battalions of people.

The Canadian Forces is running way behind in its recruiting targets, primarily having problems in finding recruits for infantry units like the one promised to Trenton.

or was it Goose Bay?

What election is this again?

Oh right.

It's the Stephen Harper "Promise 'em Anything" Tour.

The Ceeb's skewed sense of electoral balance

While I render a hearty Attaboy to Liam over at RGL for making to the CBC blogger panel, I do have a question about its composition.

There are five panelists.

There are five major parties running federally: Liberal, Conservative, New Democrat, Bloc and Green.

Why then do the bloggers on the panel consist of:

Two Conservatives
One Liberal/Progressive
One New Democrat
One unaffiliated

???

Mr. Harper's attitudes

Courtesy of the Globe and Mail, this reminder of Conservative leader Stephen harper's real attitudes toward social programs.

14 December 2005

Change the name, goal's the same

The raw materials sharing system for crab was attempting to deal with the oversupply of processing capacity (too many plants) and a relatively limited supply of crab by forcing the crab industry to share the crab around under a system of fixed prices.

Spread the resource as thinly as possible so everyone gets a piece of it, no matter how small.

After an admittedly quick read-through it seems to me that the Richard Cashin method of dealing with the same problem is to smear the limited supply of crab around to as many processors as possible so everyone gets some, even if it is just a little bit. There's a complex system to set prices.

He calls it "production limitation".

The name is changed.

The goal is still the same:

Pass the political buck to a future generation.

So much for a New Approach.

13 December 2005

A candidate, a candidate...

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.

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.]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.