Check out the Conservative television spot aimed at what they label as "Atlantic".
Then listen to the fake presenter talking about Stephen Harper's connections to the "Martimes", as if the two were the same thing. Then there's a switch by Harper to talking about Atlantic Canadians. Mixing the two is a habit for Canadians not familiar with the places east of Cornwall, Ontario. Maritimes is a term that predates Confederation in 1949.
Then the guy who talked about a culture of dependence in Atlantic spouts a new message: a positive one about wanting to help Atlantic Canadians.
or was it Maritimers?
To put this in perspective for people not from Atlantic Canada, lumping Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in with people from Nova Scotia is like saying that everything from the Ontario border to British Columbia is "the West": a big, homogeneous mass without specific issues and different cultures within each province.
It's like listening to people not from Atlantic Canada talking about driving through all four provinces in a day.
Take a map of Atlantic Canada.
Place the easternmost tip, at St. John's, on the Ontario-Manitoba border.
Where does the western tip (Edmundston, New Brunswick) wind up?
Vancouver.
If you get the geography or the names wrong, odds are good you don't fundamentally appreciate very much else, either.
Update:
A sharp-reader took issue with my distance experiement.
Fair enough.
The experiment described above was one used some time ago to impress upon people the size of Atlantic Canada. It's a long-standing local joke the number of people who think they can drive around easily, as I said. Sort of like a European friend of mine who, on coming to Canada, figured we could pop down on the weekend to California. By car. When you have never lived more that 150 miles from the ocean, big is a concept that is a little hard to fathom.
So, I hauled out the atlas and worked it out. East-West the distance goes from the Man/On border to just about Calgary, give or take a bit. It's the north-south distance from the northern tip of Labrador to Cape Sable that stretched on a map far enough to hit Vancouver, give a take a few miles.
The point of the exercise?
Atlantic Canada is a physically large place and within that there are differences of culture, geography and everything else as well as four distinct provinces. It's just as diverse as anywhere else in Canada.
If you go back to the Harper spot, let's take a look at the messages. Harper is asked about his deep roots in "the Maritimes". He talks about how his father had to leave to find opportunity elsewhere, like so many from his generation.
Then he bridges out to a statement that he believes the region should have control of its own resources and that "made in Ottawa solutions are not the answer".
To put it bluntly, this little spot is designed to do two things. First of all, the Conservatives are trying to get past the culture of defeat comment that has dogged Harper since he first made it. He wanted to leave the impression he was fully aware of the region through his father's family. Second of all, the spot is designed to deal with what is perceived to be a common regional attitude.
Unfortunately, what we have here is a caricature - a perception of Atlantic Canada or the Maritimes being the same. And the solution he talks about is an equally simplistic caricature. The "region", actually each of the four provinces, controls its own resources already. There are no "made-in Ottawa" solutions.
At no point, does Harper mention anything specific that a Conservative government might do to deal with this "problem".
Immediately above the "Atlantic" spot on the CPC website is one targeted specifically at British Columbia. That's a telling part of the Conservative approach in this spot - four provinces get lumped together as being somehow as homogeneous in attitudes and opinions as British Columbia. Atlantic Canadian or Maritimer is the identity for local people in the same way that people from the other coast would call themselves British Columbians.
But here's the thing: the sense of identity implicit in the spot is wrong. It comes from people who are not from here. It's a convenient way to describe people in the same wrong-headed way as we sometimes see all people west of described as "westerners" or, indeed of describing all people in the centre of the country as Ontarians.
However, those convenient labels miss so much that is important.
Like I said, get the name wrong and you are likely to get a lot more wrong as well.
11 January 2006
Poll-er magic
Take a look at results from an NTV/Telelink poll in Newfoundland and Labrador and the national race looks like a re-run of the same results from last time.
Provincially, Liberals are at 46.4%, Conservatives at 40.5%, NDP at 11.4% and the Greens with 1.7%. Margin of error is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Undecided is at 39%.
Flip those numbers through the Hill and Knowlton predictor and the seats stay the same as they are now, with five Liberals and two Conservatives.
On a riding by riding basis, the results are harder to assess, since the margin of error climbs to a little over 8%.
Allowing for that margin of error though, the three seats on the Avalon peninsula are all still in play. In the two seats on the northeast, both Conservative incumbents are not so far ahead that they can be comfortable. In Avalon, where incumbent Liberal John Efford is not running, NTV is reporting the Conservative slightly ahead of Liberal Bill Morrow .
Provincially, Liberals are at 46.4%, Conservatives at 40.5%, NDP at 11.4% and the Greens with 1.7%. Margin of error is 3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Undecided is at 39%.
Flip those numbers through the Hill and Knowlton predictor and the seats stay the same as they are now, with five Liberals and two Conservatives.
On a riding by riding basis, the results are harder to assess, since the margin of error climbs to a little over 8%.
Allowing for that margin of error though, the three seats on the Avalon peninsula are all still in play. In the two seats on the northeast, both Conservative incumbents are not so far ahead that they can be comfortable. In Avalon, where incumbent Liberal John Efford is not running, NTV is reporting the Conservative slightly ahead of Liberal Bill Morrow .
10 January 2006
The choice between the past and the future
Elections are about choices.
At no time in recent history have the choices for voters in St. John's South-Mount Pearl and St. John's East as clear as they are in this election.
The two ridings embody not only the current booming oil economy in Newfoundland and Labrador, but also the face of the modern province and its people.
The days of voting for your grandfather's political choice have long been dead across this province, but nowhere more than in the northeast Avalon. True, the ridings, in their old configuration have been Tory (and lately Conservative) almost continuously since Confederation (1949).
The last federal election proved just exactly how much times have changed.
If one looks at Elections Canada vote transpostions, one can see that in the current configuration, the majority of voters in the ridings have traditionally voted Progressive Conservative.
Loyola Hearn believes he had a rough ride last time because public servants were upset with Danny Williams. Nonsense. Mr. Hearn lost 15% of his core vote last time because local Progressive Conservatives could not bring themselves to vote for Stephen Harper and, in Mr. Hearn's case the man who helped Mr. Harper erase the Progressive Conservative Party and its values from the national landscape.
As if that were not enough, earlier this year Mr. Hearn's slavish devotion to his new leader placed him in the most hideous of predicaments. Having lambasted John Efford for supposedly putting Party before province, Mr. Hearn did exactly the same thing. Local Progressive Conservatives, genuine centre-right or even centre-left in their political beliefs, openly expressed their disapproval.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the Hearn campaign and that of his Conservative partner, Norm Doyle. They are desperately trying to tell us that all is well in the local federal Conservative campaigns. They proudly display the pictures and print the quotes from a handful of provincial politicians. Some of the quotes are so out of whack with reality as to be laughable and yet they are presented with the straightest of straight faces. No matter how much they repeat the message, telling us that it is so does not make it so.
There is no small irony either that Mr. Hearn, in particular has taken to presenting himself as someone who will fight for Newfoundland and Labrador. John Efford used to talk of himself like that too. There is no surprise since, despite their being in different political parties, both men are as alike as alike can be. They are relentlessly partisan, were elected to the provincial legislature at the same point in history and, as their public pronouncements would show, devoted to the ideas that were in vogue 20 years ago.
They talk of grievances that are long since past. Their solutions are also from the past. Joint management of the fishery? Sharing decisions about fisheries between two sets of politicians may have made sense when Loyola Hearn first sat in the House of Assembly a quarter century ago. But the fishery of tomorrow cannot be built by continuing to do exactly what we have done in the past, time and again, without success.
Custodial management? That too is an artifact from a bygone era. Ownership of resources? That battle was fought - and won - when both Hearn and Doyle sat in Brian Peckford's cabinet. What else do Hearn and Doyle talk about besides old ideas? Precious little, save what is in the current Harper playbook.
Compare that to the two Liberal candidates or the two New Democrats in the northeast Avalon. In these four we have men and women who represent a new generation of political leaders. Any of them would be creditable members of the national parliament. Take Hearn and Doyle from the choices and one is left in a quandary.
Sadly, not all can make it. What works against both Mike Keough and Peg Norman is not the virtue of their party platforms or their personal qualities and qualifications. What works against them as a political choice is that their party cannot form a government. Their leader, Jack Layton, has set his sights on being the third party in the Commons. Had the New Democrat campaign aimed higher, then voters in the northeast Avalon would have a harder choice.
Put Hearn and Doyle back into the picture and the choice sharpens. Put Hearn and Doyle back and we see the approaches to politics and our society that have been tried and tried and failed and failed.
Put Hearn and Doyle back in the picture and we see the choice between what we have experienced and to which we do not wish to return and the chance to do something different.
We have the choice between past and future.
Siobhan Coady and Paul Antle represent the modern Newfoundland and Labrador. They are both accomplished in their professions. Both own businesses, Antle in environmental services and Coady in both the fishery and in genetic research. They have extensive volunteer backgrounds and involvement in local and national conservation, community service and business organizations. They have represented our province and our country both nationally and internationally; Antle as a delegate to the Johannesberg environmental conference and Coady as chair of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
They both value financial responsibility balanced with social responsibility - the hallmarks of the majority of voters in St. John's East and St. John's South-Mount Pearl. They do not say things merely because words can be convenient disguises. They value diversity of opinion and people. They are not urban or rural, townie or baymen - those are labels that simply don't apply anymore. They are as comfortable in Ottawa and Toronto, New York and London as they are in Pouch Cove and Mount Pearl.
Neither shrinks from a challenge.
Coady, in particular, worked tirelessly last year on the offshore deal. Unlike some who attended no meetings that mattered, Coady met the Prime Minister or spoke with him on several occasions including before his visit here in June 2004. She had no difficulty making her position plain and in persuading the Prime Minister to state his position on the offshore unequivocally.
Staunch Hearn and Doyle supporters will not vary their vote, most likely. To the staunch Liberals or the New Democrats, the choice is easy.
But to the 15% or more of progressives who abandoned Mr. Hearn, Mr. Doyle and their leader, there is a choice. There is a choice that represents substantive local change that can, in turn produce substantive national change. To make that work, local Progressive Conservatives who left Hearn and Doyle, the local voters who turned their backs on the past once can take another step by voting for candidates who, personally, are closer to them in outlook and values than any of the others.
The challenge the province faces today is how to build on what we have. The challenge we face is the challenge of change. That challenge can only be met with fresh eyes and an approach that does not look to shopworn approaches and words that were all the rage in the 1970s and 1980s. That challenge can only be met by individuals who have shown they can work together with people from different backgrounds and different ways of doing things.
On January 23rd, we voters in the northeast Avalon must turn our face toward the future and make a choice.
From that perspective, voters in St. John's South-Mount Pearl and St. John's East can make their choice confidently.
At no time in recent history have the choices for voters in St. John's South-Mount Pearl and St. John's East as clear as they are in this election.
The two ridings embody not only the current booming oil economy in Newfoundland and Labrador, but also the face of the modern province and its people.
The days of voting for your grandfather's political choice have long been dead across this province, but nowhere more than in the northeast Avalon. True, the ridings, in their old configuration have been Tory (and lately Conservative) almost continuously since Confederation (1949).
The last federal election proved just exactly how much times have changed.
If one looks at Elections Canada vote transpostions, one can see that in the current configuration, the majority of voters in the ridings have traditionally voted Progressive Conservative.
Loyola Hearn believes he had a rough ride last time because public servants were upset with Danny Williams. Nonsense. Mr. Hearn lost 15% of his core vote last time because local Progressive Conservatives could not bring themselves to vote for Stephen Harper and, in Mr. Hearn's case the man who helped Mr. Harper erase the Progressive Conservative Party and its values from the national landscape.
As if that were not enough, earlier this year Mr. Hearn's slavish devotion to his new leader placed him in the most hideous of predicaments. Having lambasted John Efford for supposedly putting Party before province, Mr. Hearn did exactly the same thing. Local Progressive Conservatives, genuine centre-right or even centre-left in their political beliefs, openly expressed their disapproval.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the Hearn campaign and that of his Conservative partner, Norm Doyle. They are desperately trying to tell us that all is well in the local federal Conservative campaigns. They proudly display the pictures and print the quotes from a handful of provincial politicians. Some of the quotes are so out of whack with reality as to be laughable and yet they are presented with the straightest of straight faces. No matter how much they repeat the message, telling us that it is so does not make it so.
There is no small irony either that Mr. Hearn, in particular has taken to presenting himself as someone who will fight for Newfoundland and Labrador. John Efford used to talk of himself like that too. There is no surprise since, despite their being in different political parties, both men are as alike as alike can be. They are relentlessly partisan, were elected to the provincial legislature at the same point in history and, as their public pronouncements would show, devoted to the ideas that were in vogue 20 years ago.
They talk of grievances that are long since past. Their solutions are also from the past. Joint management of the fishery? Sharing decisions about fisheries between two sets of politicians may have made sense when Loyola Hearn first sat in the House of Assembly a quarter century ago. But the fishery of tomorrow cannot be built by continuing to do exactly what we have done in the past, time and again, without success.
Custodial management? That too is an artifact from a bygone era. Ownership of resources? That battle was fought - and won - when both Hearn and Doyle sat in Brian Peckford's cabinet. What else do Hearn and Doyle talk about besides old ideas? Precious little, save what is in the current Harper playbook.
Compare that to the two Liberal candidates or the two New Democrats in the northeast Avalon. In these four we have men and women who represent a new generation of political leaders. Any of them would be creditable members of the national parliament. Take Hearn and Doyle from the choices and one is left in a quandary.
Sadly, not all can make it. What works against both Mike Keough and Peg Norman is not the virtue of their party platforms or their personal qualities and qualifications. What works against them as a political choice is that their party cannot form a government. Their leader, Jack Layton, has set his sights on being the third party in the Commons. Had the New Democrat campaign aimed higher, then voters in the northeast Avalon would have a harder choice.
Put Hearn and Doyle back into the picture and the choice sharpens. Put Hearn and Doyle back and we see the approaches to politics and our society that have been tried and tried and failed and failed.
Put Hearn and Doyle back in the picture and we see the choice between what we have experienced and to which we do not wish to return and the chance to do something different.
We have the choice between past and future.
Siobhan Coady and Paul Antle represent the modern Newfoundland and Labrador. They are both accomplished in their professions. Both own businesses, Antle in environmental services and Coady in both the fishery and in genetic research. They have extensive volunteer backgrounds and involvement in local and national conservation, community service and business organizations. They have represented our province and our country both nationally and internationally; Antle as a delegate to the Johannesberg environmental conference and Coady as chair of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
They both value financial responsibility balanced with social responsibility - the hallmarks of the majority of voters in St. John's East and St. John's South-Mount Pearl. They do not say things merely because words can be convenient disguises. They value diversity of opinion and people. They are not urban or rural, townie or baymen - those are labels that simply don't apply anymore. They are as comfortable in Ottawa and Toronto, New York and London as they are in Pouch Cove and Mount Pearl.
Neither shrinks from a challenge.
Coady, in particular, worked tirelessly last year on the offshore deal. Unlike some who attended no meetings that mattered, Coady met the Prime Minister or spoke with him on several occasions including before his visit here in June 2004. She had no difficulty making her position plain and in persuading the Prime Minister to state his position on the offshore unequivocally.
Staunch Hearn and Doyle supporters will not vary their vote, most likely. To the staunch Liberals or the New Democrats, the choice is easy.
But to the 15% or more of progressives who abandoned Mr. Hearn, Mr. Doyle and their leader, there is a choice. There is a choice that represents substantive local change that can, in turn produce substantive national change. To make that work, local Progressive Conservatives who left Hearn and Doyle, the local voters who turned their backs on the past once can take another step by voting for candidates who, personally, are closer to them in outlook and values than any of the others.
The challenge the province faces today is how to build on what we have. The challenge we face is the challenge of change. That challenge can only be met with fresh eyes and an approach that does not look to shopworn approaches and words that were all the rage in the 1970s and 1980s. That challenge can only be met by individuals who have shown they can work together with people from different backgrounds and different ways of doing things.
On January 23rd, we voters in the northeast Avalon must turn our face toward the future and make a choice.
From that perspective, voters in St. John's South-Mount Pearl and St. John's East can make their choice confidently.
Harper health pledge already exists
Remember Stephen Harper's pledge to let people travel to other province's to get health care?
He called it the Patient Wait Times Guarantee.
It already exists.
It's already part of the publicly funded health care system in Canada.
Has been for decades.
That's because the Canada Health Act provides for accessibility to the system at public expense, irrespective of where one is located. If a service isn't available in your area or if you have to go elsewhere to get treatment based on medical advice, then the provincial health care plan has to cover the costs of the medical services.
Harper can implement his plan right away because it already exists.
What Harper isn't talking about is defraying the cost of travel and accommodations.
That system already exists, too, at least in some provinces. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced changes to its program today, which covers the costs of sending people outside the province for medical care. It covers not only procedures that just aren't available. It also covers patients who can't get timely access to care, as determined by their medical practitioners.
The government release is actually a little misleading when it talks about the program starting in 1998. Medical transportation assistance in Newfoundland and Labrador actually dates from the start of the medicare system. It is provided based on the accessibility provisions of the Canada Health Act.
The old program was canceled in 1997 by the Tobin government only to be replaced the next year with a similar program - only major difference is that it went from being fully government funded to being one where the patient and government split the costs.
Medical travel is based on doctor's advice for each patient.
The policy decision is made by the provincial government - the province decides how to spend the cash.
The upshot of it all?
Harper's wait times guarantee is already in place. And for anyone who isn't getting financial assistance to help width travel costs?
Steve doesn't speak about that at all.
He called it the Patient Wait Times Guarantee.
It already exists.
It's already part of the publicly funded health care system in Canada.
Has been for decades.
That's because the Canada Health Act provides for accessibility to the system at public expense, irrespective of where one is located. If a service isn't available in your area or if you have to go elsewhere to get treatment based on medical advice, then the provincial health care plan has to cover the costs of the medical services.
Harper can implement his plan right away because it already exists.
What Harper isn't talking about is defraying the cost of travel and accommodations.
That system already exists, too, at least in some provinces. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced changes to its program today, which covers the costs of sending people outside the province for medical care. It covers not only procedures that just aren't available. It also covers patients who can't get timely access to care, as determined by their medical practitioners.
The government release is actually a little misleading when it talks about the program starting in 1998. Medical transportation assistance in Newfoundland and Labrador actually dates from the start of the medicare system. It is provided based on the accessibility provisions of the Canada Health Act.
The old program was canceled in 1997 by the Tobin government only to be replaced the next year with a similar program - only major difference is that it went from being fully government funded to being one where the patient and government split the costs.
Medical travel is based on doctor's advice for each patient.
The policy decision is made by the provincial government - the province decides how to spend the cash.
The upshot of it all?
Harper's wait times guarantee is already in place. And for anyone who isn't getting financial assistance to help width travel costs?
Steve doesn't speak about that at all.
Funny + True = Mercer
Rick Mercer's contribution to the Harper machine's election would be even funnier if these people hadn't actually said those things, not in jest but in all seriousness.
Rick does a great service to Canadians by reminding us all of the sorts of people who Stephen Harper is leading.
A tip of the salt n' pepper to Mark.
Rick does a great service to Canadians by reminding us all of the sorts of people who Stephen Harper is leading.
A tip of the salt n' pepper to Mark.
Martin wins: NLSDU judges
Judges at a fundraiser for the Newfoundland and Labrador Speech and Debate Union (NLSDU) awarded the debate tonight to Paul Martin.
Steve Harper and Gilles Duceppe tied for first in the opinion of judge Liam O'Brien.
Defining moments for your humble e-scribbler and NLSDU judge:
- Paul Martin pledges to remove the notwithstanding clause from the Constitution; Harper wants to keep it just as it, for some unspecified reason.
- Harper scored the only factual errors, claiming that Canada has had a handgun ban for decades and that provinces have jurisdiction in international affairs.
- Harper has a hard time explaining his own tax plan.
- Jack Layton alternates between running for third place with the third option mantra and channelling Lilo and Stitch: no one gets left behind or forgotten.
- Gilles Duceppe keeps pushing what will prove to be a fourth rate book by a fourth rate scribbler, namely Normand Lester.
Steve Harper and Gilles Duceppe tied for first in the opinion of judge Liam O'Brien.
Defining moments for your humble e-scribbler and NLSDU judge:
- Paul Martin pledges to remove the notwithstanding clause from the Constitution; Harper wants to keep it just as it, for some unspecified reason.
- Harper scored the only factual errors, claiming that Canada has had a handgun ban for decades and that provinces have jurisdiction in international affairs.
- Harper has a hard time explaining his own tax plan.
- Jack Layton alternates between running for third place with the third option mantra and channelling Lilo and Stitch: no one gets left behind or forgotten.
- Gilles Duceppe keeps pushing what will prove to be a fourth rate book by a fourth rate scribbler, namely Normand Lester.
Hearn backs NAFO and American fishermen
Anti- NAFO crusader Gus Etchegary might want to reconsider his endorsement of Loyola Hearn.
Gus may have missed Hearn's worry that the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization would fold when Americans didn't get their fair share of some fish species.
As VOCM reported in February last year:
Americans may leave NAFO
or as The Telegram put it two days later:
Of course, the Yanks didn't leave.
But I am wondering why Gus supports Hearn, who supports NAFO when Gus keeps arguing NAFO is the root of all fisheries evil and that foreigners should be driven from the Grand Banks.
Here's one of Etchegary's more temperate remarks:
Meanwhile, Hearn's boss, Stephen Harper is backsliding on his promises to Hearn, Etchegary and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to extend custodial management.
Custodial management is a legal nonsense, of course, but if these three guys - Hearn, Harper and Ethcegary - want to push for it, the least they could do is actually agree among themselves.
Gus may have missed Hearn's worry that the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization would fold when Americans didn't get their fair share of some fish species.
As VOCM reported in February last year:
Americans may leave NAFO
The opposition fisheries critic says the United States is unhappy with NAFO and may pull out. Loyola Hearn, the MP for St. JohnÂ’s South-Mount Pearl, says he met with a delegation from the US yesterday. He says the Americans are not happy with their fish quota, especially yellow tail flounder, and he says they have a legitimate argument. Hearn says the Americans pay 20 per cent of the costs of NAFO, but get only a fraction of the quota. Hearn sys the Americans have been CanadaÂ’s closest ally in the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization.
or as The Telegram put it two days later:
U.S. ready to leave NAFO: Hearn
The Conservative fisheries critic says the United States is unhappy with NAFO and may pull out.
Tory MP Loyola Hearn says he met with a delegation from the U.S. Tuesday.
He says the Americans are not happy with their fish quota, especially yellow tail flounder - and he says they have a legitimate argument.
Hearn says the Americans have been Canada's closest ally in the international regulatory body.
Of course, the Yanks didn't leave.
But I am wondering why Gus supports Hearn, who supports NAFO when Gus keeps arguing NAFO is the root of all fisheries evil and that foreigners should be driven from the Grand Banks.
Here's one of Etchegary's more temperate remarks:
"I was 25 years with both organizations [NAFO and its predecessor] as a commissioner, representing the industry, and year after year we came out of those annual meetings reporting to the powers that be that these were useless organizations. Both organizations legitimized overfishing practices and killed out fishery. It's as simple as that," he charges. [Emphasis added]Now reconcile all that with this statement from Hearn's website:
As stated by respected fisheries advocate, Gus Etchegary, "Finally its agreed by political leaders that Custodial Management of fish stocks outside 200 miles by Canada is the only possible way we can save our rural population. We have to thank MP Loyola Hearn for his persistence and tenacity in having a supporting resolution recorded in the House of Commons. Without his dedication it would never have passed."Gus thinks having Canada take over fisheries management outside the 200 mile limit by illegal means is good; NAFO is bad. Hearn was fighting to save the same NAFO that Gus thought was a joke.
Meanwhile, Hearn's boss, Stephen Harper is backsliding on his promises to Hearn, Etchegary and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to extend custodial management.
Custodial management is a legal nonsense, of course, but if these three guys - Hearn, Harper and Ethcegary - want to push for it, the least they could do is actually agree among themselves.
09 January 2006
Harper backpedals; O'Brien buys a tractor to shove(l) harder
Note: Scroll to the bottom to get to the new bit.
As predicted here a couple of days ago, loyal local Connie Liam O'Brien is defending his leader's backpeddling on custodial management insisting that Harper's Connies are indeed committed to taking custodial management of the Grand Banks.
Ok. Let's look at O'Brien's claims and then let's look at the evidence:
First, let's take the prediction...
**Prediction:
Conservative supporters will dismiss this as irrelevant, insisting Harper is still committed to the concept of protecting fisheries even if he has no commitment actually to do anything any more.
Some Harper loyalists will insist that saying you will do something and saying you'd consider doing something are the same thing.**
Then O'Brien writes:
"Stephen Harper's Conservatives have been committed to taking custodial management over the stocks on the Nose & Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap for a long time now. Few statements make this clearer than the Party's 2005 Official Policy Document:
"...We will not hesitate to take custodial management of the stocks on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish cap.... " (Article 99 [ii]) [Emphasis added in O'Brien's original]
This [the Conservative commitment to custodial management] was re-enforced time and again in subsequent releases and visits to NL [sic]. Ed tried his best to read all sorts of things into the fact that the news releases aren't carbon copies of one another. He ignores the CPC's own black and white committed-to policy, the CPC's call for emegency debates [sic] on this very issue in the House, and the fact that this policy is indeed supported by just about everybody -- Liberals, NDPers, Tories, Unions, Industry etc..."
Then in classic Liam fashion he shifts to a different topic.
Let's stick with O'Brien and wipe that up first.
Liam is right. The Conservative statement in the policy manual from last spring, as the party was getting ready for what it thought was an election the, was absolutely unequivocal. "We will not hesitate..."
But if that is the policy, then why isn't it consistently repeated over and over again, as Liam insists it has been in the past?
When the wording of a political commitment changes it usually means the commitment has changed and one can't get any clearer than the Harper changes.
March 2005: "We will not hesitate to take custodial management"
December 2005: We will hesitate for five years; custodial management within five years in a media interview.
As he is quoted by CBC, it would be a top priority, occurring within five years. *Using the fishing village of Petty Harbour as a backdrop, Harper said the Conservatives would make custodial management happen during their first term in office.
"My hope would be that once we start to move in this direction the international community will come to the table and resolve the issue," he said. "It is a reasonable time frame."*
December 2005 news release (at the same event; not updated since): Vague - "Moving towards extending the 200-mile limit to the edge of the Continental Shelf, the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic and exercising Canadian custodial management over this area". Like saying "in the fullness of time", "eventually" or "when we get around to it."
January 2006: Letter to Danny Williams. "A Conservative government would support extending custodial management of the Continental Shelf beyond the 200 mile limit, to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic."
In the space of a year, we have gone from a firm Conservative commitment to custodial management expressed in clear language, through the equivocation of a public statement and a news release issued the same day saying different things through now to the point where what once will occur is something a Conservative government would support...
but what?
take no action on?
like it if someone else did it for them?
Liam.
Boobalah.
It's really simple.
Say what you mean and mean what you say.
Res ipsa loquitur. The facts speak for themselves.
Or do they not teach newbie lawyers anymore the basic idea that things are what they are?
Thing 1: Stephen Harper is backpeddling on custodial management.
Thing 2: Liam O'Brien insists that something that is changed substantially is still the same.
As predicted.
So the backpeddling and the shifts of language now are all the more strange, Liam, in light of the strong statements before and all the motions and posturing. You haven't undermined the argument I made; you reinforced it by pointing to the strength of the old Harper commitment.
The contrast between Harper the "Clear" and Harper the "Kinda When We Can" is so dramatic now as to be unmistakable.
Anyone can see it.
Now we just have to explain why Steve Harper is backpeddling.
Update: A lengthy addendum to his original post has appeared over at RGL. Liam uses smaller typeface which means that his explanation of his explanation of the consistency of the inconsistency is actually longer than the original explanation of the consistency where there is inconsistency.
Confuddled?
Evidently so is Liam. He tried everything from flat-out denials, to saying I just plucked out a bullet point, to promising more will follow at some point in the future.
But just to save Liam any further wriggling, here's a sample of what the three statements might have read if, and that's a big if, the Conservatives weren't backing away from custodial management.
March 2005: "We will not hesitate to take custodial management..."
December 2005 (speaking notes and news release): As stated in our policy manual, we will not hesitate to take custodial management of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. Therefore, I am announcing today that a Conservative government will extend custodial management within its first term in office...
January 2005: As you are aware, I committed that a Conservative government will extend custodial management in its first term...
See?
That's consistent.
That's what a leader would say if he were genuinely committed to a course of action or a policy.
Compare that to "will", then "move towards", then "would support".
In Spain, they are noticing the difference as we speak.
Liam better hope more people who he is counting on to support his team don't notice what everyone else can see.
Upperdate: Three - count 'em - three posts and Liam is still boashing his head against the simple point that Mr. Harper is no longer as firmly behind custodial management as his party was less than a year ago. Actually it's one long post and two longer and then longer still add-ons, but we'll call 'em three.
He tries everything, from branding me as a Liberal (quelle surprise!) to saying I don't support custodial management (It's a legal crock) to a bunch of other stuff that has nothing to do with the point. He even resorts to repeating the lengthy quotes he quoted before and then quotes and quotes and quote some more, until as Dr. Seuss would add, the quotes pushed Liam out the door.
I have figured out a couple of things about Liam over time. One of them is that the longer his posts, the less he actually has to say. The other thing, related to that, is that the longer his posts, the more likely it is you have him skewered. The other other thing to learn is that the more Liam goes off topic, the closer to the truth you come.
That must be why he hates the term Reflexive Grit Loather so much.
So now we know:
Stephen Harper is backing away from his support for custodial management.
As predicted here a couple of days ago, loyal local Connie Liam O'Brien is defending his leader's backpeddling on custodial management insisting that Harper's Connies are indeed committed to taking custodial management of the Grand Banks.
Ok. Let's look at O'Brien's claims and then let's look at the evidence:
First, let's take the prediction...
**Prediction:
Conservative supporters will dismiss this as irrelevant, insisting Harper is still committed to the concept of protecting fisheries even if he has no commitment actually to do anything any more.
Some Harper loyalists will insist that saying you will do something and saying you'd consider doing something are the same thing.**
Then O'Brien writes:
"Stephen Harper's Conservatives have been committed to taking custodial management over the stocks on the Nose & Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap for a long time now. Few statements make this clearer than the Party's 2005 Official Policy Document:
"...We will not hesitate to take custodial management of the stocks on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish cap.... " (Article 99 [ii]) [Emphasis added in O'Brien's original]
This [the Conservative commitment to custodial management] was re-enforced time and again in subsequent releases and visits to NL [sic]. Ed tried his best to read all sorts of things into the fact that the news releases aren't carbon copies of one another. He ignores the CPC's own black and white committed-to policy, the CPC's call for emegency debates [sic] on this very issue in the House, and the fact that this policy is indeed supported by just about everybody -- Liberals, NDPers, Tories, Unions, Industry etc..."
Then in classic Liam fashion he shifts to a different topic.
Let's stick with O'Brien and wipe that up first.
Liam is right. The Conservative statement in the policy manual from last spring, as the party was getting ready for what it thought was an election the, was absolutely unequivocal. "We will not hesitate..."
But if that is the policy, then why isn't it consistently repeated over and over again, as Liam insists it has been in the past?
When the wording of a political commitment changes it usually means the commitment has changed and one can't get any clearer than the Harper changes.
March 2005: "We will not hesitate to take custodial management"
December 2005: We will hesitate for five years; custodial management within five years in a media interview.
As he is quoted by CBC, it would be a top priority, occurring within five years. *Using the fishing village of Petty Harbour as a backdrop, Harper said the Conservatives would make custodial management happen during their first term in office.
"My hope would be that once we start to move in this direction the international community will come to the table and resolve the issue," he said. "It is a reasonable time frame."*
December 2005 news release (at the same event; not updated since): Vague - "Moving towards extending the 200-mile limit to the edge of the Continental Shelf, the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic and exercising Canadian custodial management over this area". Like saying "in the fullness of time", "eventually" or "when we get around to it."
January 2006: Letter to Danny Williams. "A Conservative government would support extending custodial management of the Continental Shelf beyond the 200 mile limit, to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic."
In the space of a year, we have gone from a firm Conservative commitment to custodial management expressed in clear language, through the equivocation of a public statement and a news release issued the same day saying different things through now to the point where what once will occur is something a Conservative government would support...
but what?
take no action on?
like it if someone else did it for them?
Liam.
Boobalah.
It's really simple.
Say what you mean and mean what you say.
Res ipsa loquitur. The facts speak for themselves.
Or do they not teach newbie lawyers anymore the basic idea that things are what they are?
Thing 1: Stephen Harper is backpeddling on custodial management.
Thing 2: Liam O'Brien insists that something that is changed substantially is still the same.
As predicted.
So the backpeddling and the shifts of language now are all the more strange, Liam, in light of the strong statements before and all the motions and posturing. You haven't undermined the argument I made; you reinforced it by pointing to the strength of the old Harper commitment.
The contrast between Harper the "Clear" and Harper the "Kinda When We Can" is so dramatic now as to be unmistakable.
Anyone can see it.
Now we just have to explain why Steve Harper is backpeddling.
Update: A lengthy addendum to his original post has appeared over at RGL. Liam uses smaller typeface which means that his explanation of his explanation of the consistency of the inconsistency is actually longer than the original explanation of the consistency where there is inconsistency.
Confuddled?
Evidently so is Liam. He tried everything from flat-out denials, to saying I just plucked out a bullet point, to promising more will follow at some point in the future.
But just to save Liam any further wriggling, here's a sample of what the three statements might have read if, and that's a big if, the Conservatives weren't backing away from custodial management.
March 2005: "We will not hesitate to take custodial management..."
December 2005 (speaking notes and news release): As stated in our policy manual, we will not hesitate to take custodial management of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. Therefore, I am announcing today that a Conservative government will extend custodial management within its first term in office...
January 2005: As you are aware, I committed that a Conservative government will extend custodial management in its first term...
See?
That's consistent.
That's what a leader would say if he were genuinely committed to a course of action or a policy.
Compare that to "will", then "move towards", then "would support".
In Spain, they are noticing the difference as we speak.
Liam better hope more people who he is counting on to support his team don't notice what everyone else can see.
Upperdate: Three - count 'em - three posts and Liam is still boashing his head against the simple point that Mr. Harper is no longer as firmly behind custodial management as his party was less than a year ago. Actually it's one long post and two longer and then longer still add-ons, but we'll call 'em three.
He tries everything, from branding me as a Liberal (quelle surprise!) to saying I don't support custodial management (It's a legal crock) to a bunch of other stuff that has nothing to do with the point. He even resorts to repeating the lengthy quotes he quoted before and then quotes and quotes and quote some more, until as Dr. Seuss would add, the quotes pushed Liam out the door.
I have figured out a couple of things about Liam over time. One of them is that the longer his posts, the less he actually has to say. The other thing, related to that, is that the longer his posts, the more likely it is you have him skewered. The other other thing to learn is that the more Liam goes off topic, the closer to the truth you come.
That must be why he hates the term Reflexive Grit Loather so much.
So now we know:
Stephen Harper is backing away from his support for custodial management.
08 January 2006
Voting records
Since Loyola Hearn is especially proud of the number of times he has risen to speak in the commons, it is useful heading over to howdtheyvote.ca.
On dissentions, that is voting against the party line, Loyola did so only once, on second reading of a private member's bill on student loans. Every other time he followed his leader, including in the plans to bring down the government last spring and thereby scuttle the offshore deal in favour of Stephen Harper's equalization reform gambit.
Norm Doyle joined Loyola on that student loan vote, but also voted against his party on second reading of a private member's bill to prohibit replacement workers during labour disputes. There's another dissention by Doyle, but the site doesn't actually list it. Loyola and Norm both voted to bring down the government last spring, standing cheek by jowl with their leader.
Scott Simms voted against the party line 17 times since being elected, a clear indication of both the flexibility of his party and his own independent-minded nature. That gave him a 13 place rank among parliamentarians for dissenting votes.
Bill Matthews voted against the party line 13 times for 24th place.
Gerry Byrne bucked the party seven times, for 57th place.
The late Lawrence O'Brien's stats aren't there.
Now some people will point to these figures and claim that there is a problem when someone votes against his or her party.
Others would look at it and says the dissentions speak volumes about the tolerance in the party for different views. In the top 57 dissenters, the majority are Liberals.
But flip to the bottom of the charts - there you will find cabinet ministers, who obviously have to support the government, and almost the entire Conservative and Bloc caucuses.
It gives some food for thought.
On dissentions, that is voting against the party line, Loyola did so only once, on second reading of a private member's bill on student loans. Every other time he followed his leader, including in the plans to bring down the government last spring and thereby scuttle the offshore deal in favour of Stephen Harper's equalization reform gambit.
Norm Doyle joined Loyola on that student loan vote, but also voted against his party on second reading of a private member's bill to prohibit replacement workers during labour disputes. There's another dissention by Doyle, but the site doesn't actually list it. Loyola and Norm both voted to bring down the government last spring, standing cheek by jowl with their leader.
Scott Simms voted against the party line 17 times since being elected, a clear indication of both the flexibility of his party and his own independent-minded nature. That gave him a 13 place rank among parliamentarians for dissenting votes.
Bill Matthews voted against the party line 13 times for 24th place.
Gerry Byrne bucked the party seven times, for 57th place.
The late Lawrence O'Brien's stats aren't there.
Now some people will point to these figures and claim that there is a problem when someone votes against his or her party.
Others would look at it and says the dissentions speak volumes about the tolerance in the party for different views. In the top 57 dissenters, the majority are Liberals.
But flip to the bottom of the charts - there you will find cabinet ministers, who obviously have to support the government, and almost the entire Conservative and Bloc caucuses.
It gives some food for thought.
Memo to Bourque
Before Bourque posts another piece of tripe about Normand Lester's book and Pierre Pettigrew, the old boy might want to have a look at Paul Wells' observations.
"They [Conservatives and New Democrats jumping on the Lester bandwagon] should know, as apparently they don't yet, that Lester is a vile, scuttling anglophobe with a demonstrated history of ignoring inconvenient facts, getting others flat wrong, and waving around a dusty, ancient and barely-rewritten clip file as if it were the Dead Sea Scrolls.
...
Anyone willing to hop into bed with the likes of Normand Lester has no moral claim to lead this country or to hold the balance of power in a minority Parliament. Is that clear enough?"
Crystal clear, Paul.
"They [Conservatives and New Democrats jumping on the Lester bandwagon] should know, as apparently they don't yet, that Lester is a vile, scuttling anglophobe with a demonstrated history of ignoring inconvenient facts, getting others flat wrong, and waving around a dusty, ancient and barely-rewritten clip file as if it were the Dead Sea Scrolls.
...
Anyone willing to hop into bed with the likes of Normand Lester has no moral claim to lead this country or to hold the balance of power in a minority Parliament. Is that clear enough?"
Crystal clear, Paul.
Connie reality check on finances
An assessment produced by CBC shows that the Conservative campaign promises will cost taxpayers on the order of $66 billion over the next five years.
That puts them in second place behind the New Democrats who have promised $71 billion in spending.
The Liberal platform was costed at $59.4 billion while the Bloc's platform would cost $55 billion over three years.
Note that all parties have platforms that exceed the projected federal surplus up to the year 2011. The November 19 mini-budget put that figure at $55 million.
Based on that projection, and looking at only the three national parties, Canada will overspend by:
- $16 billion under the New Democrats.
- $12 billion under the Conservatives.
- $ 6 billion under the Liberals.
Genuine fiscal Conservatives must be in a tizzy trying to figure out how to vote. Their traditional voice in the Conservatives turns out to be willing to promise New Democrat-style deficit levels in order to gain power.
Logically, that leads us to one of two conclusions:
Either fiscal conservatives will flock to the Liberals since the Conservatives appear to have lost their financial marbles.
or.
They'll vote Conservative knowing full well the party won't live up to most of the promises it has made.
Odds are good, though, they'll live up to one little plan they tried to keep under wraps:
Lower income Canadians will face a tax increase under the Conservatives.
That puts them in second place behind the New Democrats who have promised $71 billion in spending.
The Liberal platform was costed at $59.4 billion while the Bloc's platform would cost $55 billion over three years.
Note that all parties have platforms that exceed the projected federal surplus up to the year 2011. The November 19 mini-budget put that figure at $55 million.
Based on that projection, and looking at only the three national parties, Canada will overspend by:
- $16 billion under the New Democrats.
- $12 billion under the Conservatives.
- $ 6 billion under the Liberals.
Genuine fiscal Conservatives must be in a tizzy trying to figure out how to vote. Their traditional voice in the Conservatives turns out to be willing to promise New Democrat-style deficit levels in order to gain power.
Logically, that leads us to one of two conclusions:
Either fiscal conservatives will flock to the Liberals since the Conservatives appear to have lost their financial marbles.
or.
They'll vote Conservative knowing full well the party won't live up to most of the promises it has made.
Odds are good, though, they'll live up to one little plan they tried to keep under wraps:
Lower income Canadians will face a tax increase under the Conservatives.
Norm Doyle: No socon silence in Newfoundland and Labrador
With a tip of the festive hat to Mark at nottawa, let's flip over to this story from the Halifax Herald.
A couple of Connie contenders there have been muzzled by their national party over the issue of equal marriage.
**"We'’ve been told by Ottawa that we don'’t talk about that," Paula Henderson told The Chronicle Herald on Thursday. "That'’s a dropped subject."
Ms. Henderson is a campaign volunteer for Rakesh Khosla, the Tory running against Fisheries Minister Geoff Regan in Halifax West.
Paul Francis, the Conservative candidate for Sackville-Eastern Shore, also attended the meeting and he too refused to comment.
"We'’re actually referring all inquiries on that meeting to (Tory spokesman) Rob Batherson," said Jeff Alexander, communications director for Mr. Francis.**
Before this all blew up as an election issue, St. John's East Connie candidate Norm Doyle was free to chime right in and back his leader's plans to turn back the clock in Canada. He openly spoke for his social conservative (socon) agenda, an agenda that according to some reports is causing him to bleed support among younger Progressive Conservatives.
When the legislation was being debated in the Commons, Doyle said:
"[Equal marriage] is a step in the wrong direction for our society."
"At the height of this debate, a column in The National Post by Barbara Kay recently caught my eye. The headline on the column reads, "“It's time to think about the children"”. Ms. Kay made this point:
She says that children are, by nature, "“social conservatives"” and will by nature respond that they prefer a mom and a dad. She concludes by saying:
Ms. Kay makes a good and valid point. Researchers or government, nobody knows what the outcome of this reckless piece of social engineering will lead to.** [Emphasis added]
Yep.
Doyle thinks equal marriage is a "reckless piece of social engineering."
Loyola Hearn didn't say much during the debate on this crucial issue, but he voted the socon party line nonetheless.
I wonder if a reporter stuck a microphone in either of these guys' faces, what would the reply be?
Hmmmm.
A couple of Connie contenders there have been muzzled by their national party over the issue of equal marriage.
**"We'’ve been told by Ottawa that we don'’t talk about that," Paula Henderson told The Chronicle Herald on Thursday. "That'’s a dropped subject."
Ms. Henderson is a campaign volunteer for Rakesh Khosla, the Tory running against Fisheries Minister Geoff Regan in Halifax West.
Paul Francis, the Conservative candidate for Sackville-Eastern Shore, also attended the meeting and he too refused to comment.
"We'’re actually referring all inquiries on that meeting to (Tory spokesman) Rob Batherson," said Jeff Alexander, communications director for Mr. Francis.**
Before this all blew up as an election issue, St. John's East Connie candidate Norm Doyle was free to chime right in and back his leader's plans to turn back the clock in Canada. He openly spoke for his social conservative (socon) agenda, an agenda that according to some reports is causing him to bleed support among younger Progressive Conservatives.
When the legislation was being debated in the Commons, Doyle said:
"[Equal marriage] is a step in the wrong direction for our society."
"At the height of this debate, a column in The National Post by Barbara Kay recently caught my eye. The headline on the column reads, "“It's time to think about the children"”. Ms. Kay made this point:
Canadian researchers have made no effort to harvest the views of those who have the most invested in the gay marriage debate--children. Nobody has asked children if they "“strongly prefer, strongly reject or don't care"” whether they have: a single mom, single dad, mother and father, two moms or two dads.
She says that children are, by nature, "“social conservatives"” and will by nature respond that they prefer a mom and a dad. She concludes by saying:
Canada is one of only three places on Earth poised to endorse the use of children as social guinea pigs without their consent. And all because our intellectual and political elites "“haven't ever really thought about it."”
Ms. Kay makes a good and valid point. Researchers or government, nobody knows what the outcome of this reckless piece of social engineering will lead to.** [Emphasis added]
Yep.
Doyle thinks equal marriage is a "reckless piece of social engineering."
Loyola Hearn didn't say much during the debate on this crucial issue, but he voted the socon party line nonetheless.
I wonder if a reporter stuck a microphone in either of these guys' faces, what would the reply be?
Hmmmm.
Liam caves on child care.
Well sort of.
He caves, alright, but the dear old fellow will:
1. insist there was no change; and
2. this is the same position as the one he took all along.
I can see him in court now:
"Yes, M'Lud, while the forensic evidence clearly shows my client was in three houses illegally and stole a quality of jewelry in excess of $5, 000 value, he insists that in fact he is a small pink pussycat and even if he isn't a small pink pussycat, my client insists he was at home with his wife at the time the crimes were committed.
Yes, M'Lud, I acknowledge that his wife has given evidence that she was in fact at bingo that night and yes, I am aware of the three witnesses who were at home at the time and took photographs of my client in their homes at the time alleged holding the jewelry and climbing out a window, but in fact M'Lud, the price of tea in China is extremely high right now and my client is victim of a massive, evil liberal conspiracy of which you, M'Lud, are a part, and...
Look over there!
A purple dinosaur."
Distraction, obfuscation, even flat-out denials don't change the facts - on child care, Liam O'Brien is now advocating that Stephen Harper's:
"focus should remain on maximizing the size of the transfer of funding to parents and let them decide how to spend their money in order to care for their children."
To see how dramatic a shift this is, understand that initially O'Brien insisted that $2.30 cents a day gave choice in child care. That's right. My wife and I could keep one of us at home to raise our child on $2.30 a day. Now, according to Liam, Harper needs to maximize that amount.
This is the guy who quoted American right-wing political lobbyists and presented them as child care experts to bolster his case that $2.30 a day gave choice in child care.
This is the guy who howled when I pointed out, as a parent, that $2.30 was choice, my foot.
In his verbose reply, he said this:
"Ed, you fail to offer a very simple answer: if your problem is with the amount of funding offered, why aren't you advocating a system that does indeed put fund in the hands of parents?"
Of course, it wasn't my plan to fix. I have another idea I think is better.
But after a month, Liam has seen the error of his ways.
Or maybe, just maybe, Liam realized that all his rantings against the non-existent "nanny state" looked kinda dumb, since his own leader has always advocated a minimal amount for subsidized daycare. It's part of the strategy to appear more Liberal than Liberal, emphasis on the word "appear".
Either way, Liam will insist that everything is the same as it always was.
The way Liam insists change is the same, and now likely that a tax increase is a tax decrease, the next thing he'll do is headline a post: "Harper: Double Plus Good!"
He caves, alright, but the dear old fellow will:
1. insist there was no change; and
2. this is the same position as the one he took all along.
I can see him in court now:
"Yes, M'Lud, while the forensic evidence clearly shows my client was in three houses illegally and stole a quality of jewelry in excess of $5, 000 value, he insists that in fact he is a small pink pussycat and even if he isn't a small pink pussycat, my client insists he was at home with his wife at the time the crimes were committed.
Yes, M'Lud, I acknowledge that his wife has given evidence that she was in fact at bingo that night and yes, I am aware of the three witnesses who were at home at the time and took photographs of my client in their homes at the time alleged holding the jewelry and climbing out a window, but in fact M'Lud, the price of tea in China is extremely high right now and my client is victim of a massive, evil liberal conspiracy of which you, M'Lud, are a part, and...
Look over there!
A purple dinosaur."
Distraction, obfuscation, even flat-out denials don't change the facts - on child care, Liam O'Brien is now advocating that Stephen Harper's:
"focus should remain on maximizing the size of the transfer of funding to parents and let them decide how to spend their money in order to care for their children."
To see how dramatic a shift this is, understand that initially O'Brien insisted that $2.30 cents a day gave choice in child care. That's right. My wife and I could keep one of us at home to raise our child on $2.30 a day. Now, according to Liam, Harper needs to maximize that amount.
This is the guy who quoted American right-wing political lobbyists and presented them as child care experts to bolster his case that $2.30 a day gave choice in child care.
This is the guy who howled when I pointed out, as a parent, that $2.30 was choice, my foot.
In his verbose reply, he said this:
"Ed, you fail to offer a very simple answer: if your problem is with the amount of funding offered, why aren't you advocating a system that does indeed put fund in the hands of parents?"
Of course, it wasn't my plan to fix. I have another idea I think is better.
But after a month, Liam has seen the error of his ways.
Or maybe, just maybe, Liam realized that all his rantings against the non-existent "nanny state" looked kinda dumb, since his own leader has always advocated a minimal amount for subsidized daycare. It's part of the strategy to appear more Liberal than Liberal, emphasis on the word "appear".
Either way, Liam will insist that everything is the same as it always was.
The way Liam insists change is the same, and now likely that a tax increase is a tax decrease, the next thing he'll do is headline a post: "Harper: Double Plus Good!"
07 January 2006
Harper: Up is Down for taxes
CBC is reporting that Stephen Harper admits he will raise taxes on lower income Canadians, if elected, but feels that his own plan will actually lower taxes for those same people.
"The problem with general tax reductions [of the type already implemented by the Martin government], as the Liberals have shown in the past, is they're always offset by other measures," Harper said. "That's why nobody's going to notice this particular tax reduction."
The really odd thing is that only last year, in 2004, Stephen Harper proposed exactly the sort of tax cuts he now criticizes as being a waste of energy.
On the Goods and Services Tax [GST], Harper pledged only 18 months ago to increase the GST credit for low and fixed income Canadians.
Harper must be using the kind of logic he used when devising his plan to give each Canadian family $1200 annually for each child under six years of age, but to tax the money so that Canadians actually get as little as $2.30 per week day. Harper calls this choice in child care.
Wow.
Now Harper wants to cut the GST by a mere 1% in the first year of a Harper government and thereby make more money available to Canadians who have larger incomes. GST cuts of the type proposed by Harper generate greater savings to Canadians with larger disposable incomes. Those people aren't on fixed and low incomes.
Search conservative.ca and see what happened to the increased GST rebate for low and fixed income Canadians. You won't find anything even vaguely like it.
In a Harper Canada, apparently even the laws of gravity will be repealed.
Up will be down.
And I only have 19, 960 cups of coffee left to get my $400 bucks, Steve.
My kidneys are thanking you.
"The problem with general tax reductions [of the type already implemented by the Martin government], as the Liberals have shown in the past, is they're always offset by other measures," Harper said. "That's why nobody's going to notice this particular tax reduction."
The really odd thing is that only last year, in 2004, Stephen Harper proposed exactly the sort of tax cuts he now criticizes as being a waste of energy.
On the Goods and Services Tax [GST], Harper pledged only 18 months ago to increase the GST credit for low and fixed income Canadians.
Harper must be using the kind of logic he used when devising his plan to give each Canadian family $1200 annually for each child under six years of age, but to tax the money so that Canadians actually get as little as $2.30 per week day. Harper calls this choice in child care.
Wow.
Now Harper wants to cut the GST by a mere 1% in the first year of a Harper government and thereby make more money available to Canadians who have larger incomes. GST cuts of the type proposed by Harper generate greater savings to Canadians with larger disposable incomes. Those people aren't on fixed and low incomes.
Search conservative.ca and see what happened to the increased GST rebate for low and fixed income Canadians. You won't find anything even vaguely like it.
In a Harper Canada, apparently even the laws of gravity will be repealed.
Up will be down.
And I only have 19, 960 cups of coffee left to get my $400 bucks, Steve.
My kidneys are thanking you.
Bourque berks - misses links to Connies
In his seemingly limitless efforts to slander anyone associated with the Liberal Party, Bourque has decided to attack not only Pierre Pettigrew but the Council for Canadian Unity, which he refers to as a shadowy group. Before I finished the post, the berk moved the top of pager to here.
May I suggest google to dispel the shadows?
Enter the keywords and you will wind up at the site of the Canadian Unity Council, which seems to have been referred to sometimes as the Council for Canadian Unity.
The board of directors includes Bob Rae. Yep. He's pretty much an underworld type.
Included on the board of governors, no more shadowy a figure as Peter Lougheed. Then from Manitoba there is another unsavoury type - Gail Asper, corporate secretary of CanWest Global.
Ontario's Lincoln Alexander is another known skulker mingling with this dastardly crowd.
Let's not forget retired general Charlie Belzile - he's in there too with this nefarious group.
Maybe Bourque has some bone to pick with Donna Dasko of Environics, another governor of the unity underground?
Closer to home, let me offer up another example of the sort of people involved in this group: Ali Chaisson, of the Federation des francophones de Terre Neuve et du Labrador.
Would you believe Steve Kent, mayor of Mount Pearl?
And that's just a handful of the people involved in this non-partisan group, formed in the early 1960s to inform and engage all Canadians in building and strengthening Canada.
But wait.
These guys are affiliated with a bunch called the Dominion Institute and their honourary patron John Ralston Saul. The advisory board of this bunch includes clearly disreputable people like Ann Medina, Jack Granatstein and Richard Gwynn.
Do a quick google on Option Canada and one can easily find a little compendium of articles on the subject in English and French.
And what pray tell might this be?
A 1997 Montreal Gazette article written by Claude Arpin describing grants made to Option Canada. Ok.
Arpin describes OC as "a Montreal lobby group set up eight weeks before the Oct. 30 referendum vote.
Option Canada included businessmen, along with political organizers from three parties - the Liberal Party of Canada, the Quebec Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada."
Look at that last bit again.
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, now without the progressive bits.
Look at the number of articles in the little compendium here and the dates associated with them and you'll see a long-standing anti-federalist campaign dating back to the 1995 referendum designed to "get" the side that won.
Maybe, just maybe I am missing something here, but it seems to me that a tiny bit of research would demonstrate that what appears to be something hideous for Liberals, as it has been painted, is either:
a. nothing much at all; or,
b. something that is going to splash a bunch of people including...wait for it...Conservatives.
In any event, we can safely say Bourque must be French for berk, at best, and that once again we have Stephen Harper in bed with Gilles Duceppe criticizing Liberals on national unity.
The only thing I'd like to see is the list of Progressive Conservatives tied up with Option Canada so we can see how many of them have ties to Mr. Harper.
And as a last thought?
If people want to make this election about the future of Canada:
Bring it on!
May I suggest google to dispel the shadows?
Enter the keywords and you will wind up at the site of the Canadian Unity Council, which seems to have been referred to sometimes as the Council for Canadian Unity.
The board of directors includes Bob Rae. Yep. He's pretty much an underworld type.
Included on the board of governors, no more shadowy a figure as Peter Lougheed. Then from Manitoba there is another unsavoury type - Gail Asper, corporate secretary of CanWest Global.
Ontario's Lincoln Alexander is another known skulker mingling with this dastardly crowd.
Let's not forget retired general Charlie Belzile - he's in there too with this nefarious group.
Maybe Bourque has some bone to pick with Donna Dasko of Environics, another governor of the unity underground?
Closer to home, let me offer up another example of the sort of people involved in this group: Ali Chaisson, of the Federation des francophones de Terre Neuve et du Labrador.
Would you believe Steve Kent, mayor of Mount Pearl?
And that's just a handful of the people involved in this non-partisan group, formed in the early 1960s to inform and engage all Canadians in building and strengthening Canada.
But wait.
These guys are affiliated with a bunch called the Dominion Institute and their honourary patron John Ralston Saul. The advisory board of this bunch includes clearly disreputable people like Ann Medina, Jack Granatstein and Richard Gwynn.
Do a quick google on Option Canada and one can easily find a little compendium of articles on the subject in English and French.
And what pray tell might this be?
A 1997 Montreal Gazette article written by Claude Arpin describing grants made to Option Canada. Ok.
Arpin describes OC as "a Montreal lobby group set up eight weeks before the Oct. 30 referendum vote.
Option Canada included businessmen, along with political organizers from three parties - the Liberal Party of Canada, the Quebec Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada."
Look at that last bit again.
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, now without the progressive bits.
Look at the number of articles in the little compendium here and the dates associated with them and you'll see a long-standing anti-federalist campaign dating back to the 1995 referendum designed to "get" the side that won.
Maybe, just maybe I am missing something here, but it seems to me that a tiny bit of research would demonstrate that what appears to be something hideous for Liberals, as it has been painted, is either:
a. nothing much at all; or,
b. something that is going to splash a bunch of people including...wait for it...Conservatives.
In any event, we can safely say Bourque must be French for berk, at best, and that once again we have Stephen Harper in bed with Gilles Duceppe criticizing Liberals on national unity.
The only thing I'd like to see is the list of Progressive Conservatives tied up with Option Canada so we can see how many of them have ties to Mr. Harper.
And as a last thought?
If people want to make this election about the future of Canada:
Bring it on!
Just for curiosity...
This election a couple of seat projectors have come up on line. They are linked down the right hand column, under Election 2006.
The hill and Knowlton one just needs numbers to plug in.
The democraticspace one is considerably more complex and I won't pretend to understand the intricacies of the math involved.
But I can say I find the outcome of the process at odds with where I'd put the seats in this province based on observation and intuition.
Just for curiosity, slip over and have a look at democraticspace.com.
It shows the Liberals safe in three seats (Labrador, Random-Burin-St.George's, and Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte).
Ok. I'll buy that.
Then it shows the Conservatives safe in the two St. John's seats and the Liberal seats in Avalon and Bonavista-Gander-Grand Falls-Windsor being too close to call.
Now that's a tough sell.
Avalon has been a strong Liberal seat and even with re-apportionment, the more populous northern portion of the riding is decidedly Liberal. It has been Progressive Conservative but it's
never been hard core Connie country.
Yes, it has a good Conservative candidate this time around, but his strength is in the southern portion.
Two close to call, which is what democraticspace.com would call this seat seems a little bit off.
Ditto for the central Newfoundland seat held by Scott Simms. Simms is capable and popular and has been an effective member of parliament. While some people are playing up the weather office in Gander story, there's no sense that has produced some sort of tidal shift away from Simms.
In fact, the Prime Minister's recent announcement of moving weather research to Gander is considerably more believable than the Conservative promise. After all, Harper is just agreeing to undo something that has been done and that won't actually improve the quality of weather forecasting.
Ditto as well for identifying the two St. John's seats as being solidly Conservative.
Nothing public has changed the starting position in this campaign. At best, the Conservatives are marginally ahead.
Both Siobhan Coady and Paul Antle are excellent contenders, with Coady clearly carrying great momentum from her last run at St. John's South-Mount Pearl in 2004. A supposedly safe Conservative seat slipped dramatically and Coady came within a hair's breadth of unseating a veteran Connie.
For both seats, the Conservative incumbents suffered serious damage in their efforts to dance on the offshore deals.
A sign of how deep were their self-inflicted wounds is their current ad campaign. It all stresses the exact opposite of what occurred and has a bunch of people coming forward giving testimonials to things that, frankly, these guys never did.
If they were genuinely safe, both incumbents wouldn't be trying so hard to convince us they had the seats locked up.
Add to that the small number of Loyola Hearn signs in St. John's South-Mount Pearl and his heavy media buy aimed at his core audience. This guy's strategy is to hold on to what he's got; he isn't trying to win back anyone he lost or gain anyone new.
My own prediction hasn't changed on the Newfoundland and Labrador ridings, based on observation and what polling has been publicly available. It isn't scientific but more of a gut instinct.
Liberals solid in five.
Liberals solidly in contention in two, with a strong possibility that both Conservative incumbents will be collecting second pensions on January 24.
What will tip the difference in the next few weeks will be the heightened visibility of the Liberals in St. John's and Mount Pearl.
As I said before, keep an eye on these two easternmost seats.
They are the ones to watch
The hill and Knowlton one just needs numbers to plug in.
The democraticspace one is considerably more complex and I won't pretend to understand the intricacies of the math involved.
But I can say I find the outcome of the process at odds with where I'd put the seats in this province based on observation and intuition.
Just for curiosity, slip over and have a look at democraticspace.com.
It shows the Liberals safe in three seats (Labrador, Random-Burin-St.George's, and Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte).
Ok. I'll buy that.
Then it shows the Conservatives safe in the two St. John's seats and the Liberal seats in Avalon and Bonavista-Gander-Grand Falls-Windsor being too close to call.
Now that's a tough sell.
Avalon has been a strong Liberal seat and even with re-apportionment, the more populous northern portion of the riding is decidedly Liberal. It has been Progressive Conservative but it's
never been hard core Connie country.
Yes, it has a good Conservative candidate this time around, but his strength is in the southern portion.
Two close to call, which is what democraticspace.com would call this seat seems a little bit off.
Ditto for the central Newfoundland seat held by Scott Simms. Simms is capable and popular and has been an effective member of parliament. While some people are playing up the weather office in Gander story, there's no sense that has produced some sort of tidal shift away from Simms.
In fact, the Prime Minister's recent announcement of moving weather research to Gander is considerably more believable than the Conservative promise. After all, Harper is just agreeing to undo something that has been done and that won't actually improve the quality of weather forecasting.
Ditto as well for identifying the two St. John's seats as being solidly Conservative.
Nothing public has changed the starting position in this campaign. At best, the Conservatives are marginally ahead.
Both Siobhan Coady and Paul Antle are excellent contenders, with Coady clearly carrying great momentum from her last run at St. John's South-Mount Pearl in 2004. A supposedly safe Conservative seat slipped dramatically and Coady came within a hair's breadth of unseating a veteran Connie.
For both seats, the Conservative incumbents suffered serious damage in their efforts to dance on the offshore deals.
A sign of how deep were their self-inflicted wounds is their current ad campaign. It all stresses the exact opposite of what occurred and has a bunch of people coming forward giving testimonials to things that, frankly, these guys never did.
If they were genuinely safe, both incumbents wouldn't be trying so hard to convince us they had the seats locked up.
Add to that the small number of Loyola Hearn signs in St. John's South-Mount Pearl and his heavy media buy aimed at his core audience. This guy's strategy is to hold on to what he's got; he isn't trying to win back anyone he lost or gain anyone new.
My own prediction hasn't changed on the Newfoundland and Labrador ridings, based on observation and what polling has been publicly available. It isn't scientific but more of a gut instinct.
Liberals solid in five.
Liberals solidly in contention in two, with a strong possibility that both Conservative incumbents will be collecting second pensions on January 24.
What will tip the difference in the next few weeks will be the heightened visibility of the Liberals in St. John's and Mount Pearl.
As I said before, keep an eye on these two easternmost seats.
They are the ones to watch
Local News Notes for Saturday
1. Canadian Press (CP) has picked up the Harper/spy agency story. The Telegram is running a CP wire story on the issues including quotes from Stephen Harper. No electronic copy appears to be available.
2. Hit 'em where it hurts. The hitcounter went off the scale on Friday here at Bond Papers, topping out at a number of visitors not seen since January 2005 during the offshore fight.
Biggest story overnight? The anti-clamping candidate in British Columbia who wants to end the practice of clamping umbilical cords after delivery.
3. St. John's South-Mount Pearl Liberal candidate Siobhan Coady made the Telegram today. She didn't get a hit from her release yesterday on the Lower Churchill. Instead, she got coverage on some of her campaign signs which have been vandalized. The page three story lowballs the cost estimate of the signs but quotes Coady as saying she is shocked and saddened by the incidents.
Now if only she could catch Loyola or Peg defacing her signs, a la Ray O'Neill in last year's pathetic municipal election...
4. Elsewhere in the Telegram, there's a full page story on the need for a new military headquarters building in St. John's. Plans to replace the existing Second World War era buildings have been underway for a decade and now is the crunch time. The existing decrepit buildings are due to be sold this year.
So far no candidates have picked up this issue although it's been swirling around the community for years.
Estimated cost of the new building - $68 million.
That story is linked on the Telly site, under the Lifestyles section. Don't ask me why it's there and not in the news section.
2. Hit 'em where it hurts. The hitcounter went off the scale on Friday here at Bond Papers, topping out at a number of visitors not seen since January 2005 during the offshore fight.
Biggest story overnight? The anti-clamping candidate in British Columbia who wants to end the practice of clamping umbilical cords after delivery.
3. St. John's South-Mount Pearl Liberal candidate Siobhan Coady made the Telegram today. She didn't get a hit from her release yesterday on the Lower Churchill. Instead, she got coverage on some of her campaign signs which have been vandalized. The page three story lowballs the cost estimate of the signs but quotes Coady as saying she is shocked and saddened by the incidents.
Now if only she could catch Loyola or Peg defacing her signs, a la Ray O'Neill in last year's pathetic municipal election...
4. Elsewhere in the Telegram, there's a full page story on the need for a new military headquarters building in St. John's. Plans to replace the existing Second World War era buildings have been underway for a decade and now is the crunch time. The existing decrepit buildings are due to be sold this year.
So far no candidates have picked up this issue although it's been swirling around the community for years.
Estimated cost of the new building - $68 million.
That story is linked on the Telly site, under the Lifestyles section. Don't ask me why it's there and not in the news section.
Harper backpedals on commitment to custodial management
Conservative leader Stephen Harper is backpeddling on his commitment to extend Canadian fisheries jurisdiction beyond the 200 mile limit within five years of becoming Prime Minister.
Flanked by Conservative candidate Loyola Hearn at a staged photo op in Petty Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador, Harper said that a Conservative government will extend custodial management within five years of taking office.
(Left: Conservative candidate Loyola Hearn gestures frantically for some unknown reason. Perhaps the forceful gestures were intended to distract from Harper's evident weak commitment to his won words. Photo: Greg Locke/Picturedesk International)
The official Conservative news release contained no such commitment or time frame. Instead, Harper committed to "moving toward extending the 200-mile limit to the edge of the Continental Shelf, the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic and exercising Canadian custodial management over this area..."
Rather than repeating even the weaker words from the news release, Harper's letter to Williams now contains even more conditional and less emphatic language. Harper's new commitment is that he would support. The use of the word "would" suggest a "but" is not far behind.
Here's the bit from Santa's Letter to Danny.
"A Conservative government would support extending custodial management of the Continental Shelf beyond the 200 mile limit, to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic."
----------------
Prediction:
Conservative supporters will dismiss this as irrelevant, insisting Harper is still committed to the concept of protecting fisheries even if he has no commitment actually to do anything any more.
Some Harper loyalists will insist that saying you will do something and saying you'd consider doing something are the same thing.
Shadow Harper spokesperson Sue Kelland Dyer, who tried to hide from local media on the Harper bus in Petty Harbour, will call Open line repeatedly to insist this flip flop is actually working against the interests of central Canada and the central government and therefore because the word "central" doesn't appear in the Harper release, it is obviously good.
Given her evident phobia about the word central, Dyer is next expected to defend Harper's plans to eliminate "central" heating.
Flanked by Conservative candidate Loyola Hearn at a staged photo op in Petty Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador, Harper said that a Conservative government will extend custodial management within five years of taking office.
(Left: Conservative candidate Loyola Hearn gestures frantically for some unknown reason. Perhaps the forceful gestures were intended to distract from Harper's evident weak commitment to his won words. Photo: Greg Locke/Picturedesk International)The official Conservative news release contained no such commitment or time frame. Instead, Harper committed to "moving toward extending the 200-mile limit to the edge of the Continental Shelf, the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic and exercising Canadian custodial management over this area..."
Rather than repeating even the weaker words from the news release, Harper's letter to Williams now contains even more conditional and less emphatic language. Harper's new commitment is that he would support. The use of the word "would" suggest a "but" is not far behind.
Here's the bit from Santa's Letter to Danny.
"A Conservative government would support extending custodial management of the Continental Shelf beyond the 200 mile limit, to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic."
----------------
Prediction:
Conservative supporters will dismiss this as irrelevant, insisting Harper is still committed to the concept of protecting fisheries even if he has no commitment actually to do anything any more.
Some Harper loyalists will insist that saying you will do something and saying you'd consider doing something are the same thing.
Shadow Harper spokesperson Sue Kelland Dyer, who tried to hide from local media on the Harper bus in Petty Harbour, will call Open line repeatedly to insist this flip flop is actually working against the interests of central Canada and the central government and therefore because the word "central" doesn't appear in the Harper release, it is obviously good.
Given her evident phobia about the word central, Dyer is next expected to defend Harper's plans to eliminate "central" heating.
Tories to hike taxes - on lowest income earners
Conservative candidate Jason Kenny confirmed Friday that the federal Conservative Party would raise taxes on low income earners.
That's right.
Raise taxes.
On low income earners.
CBC News is reporting:
"A Tory plan to raise personal income taxes on low income earners is part of an overall tax strategy that will result in more tax relief for Canadians, Tory MP [sic] Jason Kenney said Friday.
Kenney was reacting to a CBC News story that revealed part of the Tory tax plan if they take power is to reverse a Liberal tax cut introduced before the election."
Following a CBC story on the tax cut/tax hike, Conservative staffers called CBC to confirm that while Stephen Harper had previously said he'd allow Liberal tax cuts to stand, he now plans to raise taxes on some Canadians - the lowest income earners - shortly after being elected.
That's right.
Raise taxes.
On low income earners.
CBC News is reporting:
"A Tory plan to raise personal income taxes on low income earners is part of an overall tax strategy that will result in more tax relief for Canadians, Tory MP [sic] Jason Kenney said Friday.
Kenney was reacting to a CBC News story that revealed part of the Tory tax plan if they take power is to reverse a Liberal tax cut introduced before the election."
Following a CBC story on the tax cut/tax hike, Conservative staffers called CBC to confirm that while Stephen Harper had previously said he'd allow Liberal tax cuts to stand, he now plans to raise taxes on some Canadians - the lowest income earners - shortly after being elected.
06 January 2006
Can the Anti-Circ Party be far behind?
This story, from Canadian Press, is just too funny.
Why can't we have candidates like this one across Canada?
I mean really.
OTTAWA (CP) - Some may see it as the ultimate in political navel-gazing - an Independent candidate in the Jan. 23 election wants to clamp down on the clamping down of umbilical cords.
Donna Young believes homosexuality can be explained by whether a person's umbilical cord was clamped immediately after birth.
Young, 63, is running in the British Columbia riding of Prince George-Peace River and says she makes no judgment about people's sexual preferences.
While not exactly a debate about innies or outies, Young is serious about her theory that people who had their cords clamped are missing hormones to match their sex organs.
Young also said in an interview that the clamping causes health problems.
"Basically, this is the last field of emancipation and a woman controlling her body," said Young.
Why can't we have candidates like this one across Canada?
I mean really.
OTTAWA (CP) - Some may see it as the ultimate in political navel-gazing - an Independent candidate in the Jan. 23 election wants to clamp down on the clamping down of umbilical cords.
Donna Young believes homosexuality can be explained by whether a person's umbilical cord was clamped immediately after birth.
Young, 63, is running in the British Columbia riding of Prince George-Peace River and says she makes no judgment about people's sexual preferences.
While not exactly a debate about innies or outies, Young is serious about her theory that people who had their cords clamped are missing hormones to match their sex organs.
Young also said in an interview that the clamping causes health problems.
"Basically, this is the last field of emancipation and a woman controlling her body," said Young.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)