Stephen Harper, heal thyself

Came across this old Conservative campaign ad from the 2004 campaign on YouTube, and found it amusing.



I can’t help but wonder what 2004 Harper would say to 2007 Deceivin’ Steven, after a year and a half of government that has been anything but accountable.

Whether it’s misleading Parliament on Afghan detainees, disrupting committees to stop witnesses from testifying, an unaccountable public works minister that can’t find the Senate, refusing to cooperate with the ethics commissioner, hiding from and trying to control the media and so much more, the list of this government’s lack of accountability is nearly boundless.

I think 2004 Harper would say that it’s time to demand better.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

iNough already!

Being a big fan of NBC’s The Office I watched the three episode marathon last night and I lost count of the number of iPhone commercials I was bombarded with. Every break it seemed there was at least one.

Enough already. Sure, it looks cool. But it’s just a phone. Sure, it plays videos, music and surfs the Web. So do a score of other converged devices already on the market. I picked up a Pocket PC a few weeks that does all that. And not only does it have a much easier to use keyboard but after the rebates and a contract it was free. The iPhone will cost you a second mortgage, even on a contract.

And what’s with this bragging about it not being the mobile Internet you get on the iPhone, but ‘the real Internet’? Umm, Apple, there’s a reason why Web site developers are optimizing their Web sites for mobile devices. Actually, there’s a bunch.

Such as speed. It would take forever to download a full web page mobily and that’s not a function of the device, but of the mobile network speed. It would also chew up a lot of data, and mobile data isn’t cheap. Then there’s the fact the screens are too small to make it readable. Sorry Apple, but mobile Internet good.

And enough with the marketing overkill already. It’s being so hyped in the media already they don’t need to spend a penny on ads.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Gordon says hells no, he won’t go

Which means of course that Gordon O’Connor’s days as Deceivin’ Steven’s minister of defence are numbered (a shuffle is rumoured to be imminent). And while as a Liberal I’m tempted to say keep him in there, as a Canadian I’d rather see someone competent in the rather important portfolio.

So, rather than re-cap the incompetent boobery of O’Connor in the defence portfolio, except to say I told you so, let’s turn instead to the matter of who replaces O’Connor at DND as Rick Hiller’s 2iC boss.

The Globe today has the official speculation:

Two senior cabinet members, Industry Minister Maxime Bernier and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, have been touted as the most likely successors to Mr. O'Connor at Defence.

Mr. Bernier's name has been cited by Conservatives who believe a Quebec minister would make the best spokesman for the mission when the Quebec-based Royal 22nd Regiment deploys to Kandahar.

Mr. Day, meanwhile, is seen by many Tories as a surprise success because he has avoided major public pitfalls in a portfolio plagued with tricky issues and bad news, including a spate of RCMP controversies.

My eyes bulged a bit at seeing Stock’s name on the list. I’d just assume keep Day away from anything to do with guns myself. Granted, he hasn’t made a total ass of himself in his current portfolio. But then again, given the job performance of some of his cabinet colleagues, as long as he didn’t start flinging around his own droppings he’d look good by comparison. He hasn’t exactly excelled either though.

Then there’s Maxime Bernier. What is there you can say about Bernier? Well, he’s not Michael Fortier, so that’s a positive. He’s been low profile, hasn’t garnered much attention that I can recall. He did fight Fortier on the pork-barreling regional plums related to the Boeing contract; I give him points for that.

Why would Bernier want the job though? With the Vandoos on their way to Afghanistan a mission already unpopular in Quebec is going to become even more unpopular there. Why would you want to tar an as yet unblemished Quebec minister with this one? He would become the focal point for all the anger with the mission in the province, and he needs to not only get re-elected there, but have some coattails too.

So, who would I give the job to? Since I’m guessing I have to pick from the CPC caucus that’s though. Unless I can dangle the job to a floor crosser? Nah. Hmm, that’s tough then.

I’ve always felt young James Moore was deserving of a cabinet seat, but he should start smaller. While he hasn’t wowed in agriculture, Chuck Strahl is a decent, competent guy and is at least somewhat familiar with defence issues (the closed CFB Chilliwack was in his riding). Jim Prentice is another good performer but you probably want to keep him where he is right now, in Indian Affairs. Maybe it’s time to give Monte Solberg a bigger platform to sink or swim on; he’s been invisible in human resources.

I think Strahl would be an interesting choice though.

P.S. Might be a good time to name a new Liberal defence critic too. Just sayin'.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Run John Tory, run away!

Yesterday was a big day at Queen’s Park: the unveiling of the official portrait of former Ontario Premier Mike Harris.

The portrait unveilings are traditionally a day to put aside partisanship, and even Dalton McGuinty’s speechwriters found something nice to say about the guy that slashed services and jacked-up the deficit:

"Mike Harris took a third place party and turned it into a machine designed in his own image: bold, confident and uncompromising, and voters responded," Mr. McGuinty said.

Also on hand were two former Harris cronies who are busy bringing Harris’ brand of (lacking) common sense revolution to Ottawa, former provincial ministers Jim Flaherty and Tony Clement. Bill Davis was there too. So was Ernie Eves. That’s three former Ontario PC leaders.

Who was noticeable in his absence however? If you guessed current Ontario Conservative leader John “Mike who?” Tory, then give yourself a gold star. Tory has gone to great pains lately to avoid getting within a country mile of Harris, not that he’ll admit it.

Brendan Howe, Mr. Tory's press secretary, said his boss made a commitment several months ago to give a speech yesterday in Waterloo to the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police.

Mr. Harris told reporters that Mr. Tory telephoned him last week and said he felt torn because he had the other commitment.

Umm hmm. To quote Oprah-approved relationshipologist Greg Behrendt: Mike, he’s just not that into you!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Where's the mariachi band for Michael Fortier?

What's that you say, Mrs. Robinson? Preston Manning has left and gone away?

Back in the heady days of the Reform Party, Preston Manning’s gang of merry reformers (with Deceivin’ Steven at his side) were all about Senate reform. Real Senate reform that is, not the tepid window dressing masquerading as Senate reform they’re not peddling.

They were also all about the wacky stunt to call attention to their issues and garner media attention. One such stunt involved the truant Senator, Andrew Thompson. Thompson had a pitifully poor attendance record, claiming poor health, spending most of his time in Mexico. Attending just 12 sessions in seven years for a pitiful 2.2 per cent attendance rate Thompson became the poster child for Senate absenteeism and was kicked out of the Liberal caucus.

The Reformers also latched-onto Thompson as a symbol of all that was wrong with the Red Chamber. In a memorable stunt, they hired a Mariachi band and served burritos in the Senate lobby to draw attention to Thompson’s absenteeism. I even recall Randy White wearing a sombrero and shaking maracas. Still have nightmares actually.

Any-ho, the Senate eventually suspended Thompson and shortly thereafter he resigned.

I’ve embarked on this trip down Reform memory lane not just for fun, but because the Thompson case came to mind when I read this little factoid recently posted by Cerberus:

(Public Works Minister Michael Fortier)'s view on the legitimacy of the Senate can probably be divined from his voting record. He has voted just five times (all on the same day) in 102 sitting days.

Math has never been a strong suit of mine, but that seems to be a vote attendance record of 4.9 per cent. Nearly in Thompson territory. And yet the old Reformers are quiet. No Mariachi Band. No maracas.

Maybe they’ll stop rolling-over for Harper’s sellout of their principles and mockery of everything they stood for after their siestas?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Chretien and Martin teaming up?

I hear two former Prime Ministers will soon be helping out the Liberal Party on the fundraising front.

In the next little while I hear Jean Chretien and Paul Martin will be throwing their height behind some fundraising efforts on behalf of the party. At a minimum they'll be doing some e-solicitations, and maybe more.

While the cynics will have their fun I think it's a positive and helpful sign the party is uniting. I'm veering into speculation now, but I bet a dinner with the two of them as joint headliners would sell a few tickets.

And with that, I'll stop channeling Jane Taber...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

He also leaps tall buildings in a single bound

So, today Deceivin' Steven and the New Brunswick Premier had a joint photo-op to announce the funding of some highway improvements in the province.

But this isn’t just a routine federal/provincial announcement, oh no. Perhaps since Harper has managed not to invite New Brunswickers to sue him he’s hailing the $207 million announcement as an example of how federalism can work.

Mr. Harper, who is locked in a battle with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador over changes to equalization funding, said the highway improvements show how federalism can work.

"Today's announcement is a testament to what can be achieved when Ottawa and the provinces embrace the true spirit of the federalism of openness and work together to make Canada stronger, safer and better," he said at the legislature, where he was joined by Premier Shawn Graham.

What today is Stephen is an example of how federalism DOES work. Routinely. Every day. Coast to coast. Even in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. The window dressing is silly. This is a routine announcement of federal funding for highway improvement, not the end to the long, tired era of federal/provincial bickering. That ended a few months back, after all.

What’s not an example of how federalism should work is, say, inviting provincial governments to take you to court when you break your election promises to them.

So. I guess you could say Harper is right. Today was an example of how federalism can work…when the Prime Minister isn’t being a putz.

My apologies, Stephen.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

You know you arrived when...

...national newspapers do silly features of dubious value on you, such as evaluations of your fitness routines.

Therefore Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May, you have arrived! Congratulations. Peter McKay had better demand equal billing for his walking his rented dog fitness plan or he's in trouble…

Damaged hip dictates a careful routine
Elizabeth May, Green Party of Canada leader

BENJAMIN LESZCZ
From Monday's Globe and Mail
June 25, 2007 at 8:56 AM EDT

My goal
"My right hip is painful from osteoarthritis, and I'm on the wait list for a replacement. My goal is to recover quickly from surgery and get back to the things I love."

My workout
Nearly everyday: 15-minute routine at home consisting of three exercises; pushes legs against the wall; balances on hands and knees and lifts right leg in the air; lies on back and straightens legs in the air (holds all three exercises for 30 seconds each, two to three sets of each).

Health club, weekly: 10 laps in the pool; some weights and a brief ride on the stationary bike.

Monthly massages.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The quest for the holy BBQ tongs

At long last that most feted of seasons has arrived: the summer political BBQ season. To the grills the politicians will scurry, apron adorned with tongs in hand (no chef hats, ever!), ready to flip their polling numbers and a hamburger patty at the same time.

Maclean's Scott Fescuk has a fun column on how the political chattering classes tend to treat the BBQ circuit as a political cure-all, and he’s not far off. Steve also weighs in with a more analytical questioning of the BBQ effect.

But as I've often harped on the need for Stephane Dion to turn in a good performance on the BBQ circuit this summer, I’d like to throw my two cents in here.

A summer BBQ tour isn’t about generating big headlines in the national media. It’s not about an overnight bump or jump in the polls. It may well seem like Dion will disappear this summer to observers of the national media, and I won’t expect any summer movement in Liberal polling numbers.

Rather, if done right, a BBQ tour is about getting out of the Ottawa bubble and generating headlines in the local community media, which is more receptive to the message than the jaded national press corps.

It’s also about meeting with small groups of Canadians, letting them get to know you a bit, and become more comfortable with the idea of voting for you down the road. And seeing you unfiltered through the media lens.

Instead of being about moving poll numbers, it’s about setting the stage for future poll movement. It’s about making people more comfortable with the idea of voting for you. Particularly as an opposition leader. So that down the road, when the government starts to defeat itself (as they usually do) and the winning conditions start to emerge people will be open to voting for you and see you as a viable alternative.

Stephen Harper’s summer on the BBQ circuit after the 2004 election is an oft-repeated cast study, but it’s oft-repeated because it worked. He disappeared from the national media spotlight as he toured small town Canada and grilled burgers and dogs. The national media had much fun writing him off, and he wasn’t rewarded with a bump in the polls. But he had softened the ground so that as he Liberals stumbled in the following campaign he was in a position to capitalize.

So, it is right to not view the BBQ tour as a cure-all. But it’s not meant to be. But while their importance shouldn’t be overstated, they do have a role to play. It’s just important to understand what that role is.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Holy over the top Nazi reference, Batman

I've often talked about the tendency of lazy politicians to use references and analogies Nazi Germany to bolster their arguments. Referencing Neville Chamberlain and appeasement is a common crutch.

A Republican politician in the U.S. has taken the cake, however. I came across this comment last week in the USA Today, in an article about six States defying a federal law requiring ID cards:

“The people of New Hampshire are adamantly opposed to any kind of ‘papers-please; society reminiscent of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia,” said Neal Kurk, a Republican state representative from New Hampshire. “This is another effort of the federal government to keep track of all its citizens.”

While I applaud a member of Dubaya’s own party for standing-up to the Bush policy of sacrificing civil rights for supposed safety, comparing the policy to Nazi Germany? And Stalinist Russia? That’s quite the two-fer.

Canadian politicians, you have a long ways to go it seems when it comes to over the top bombast.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Cole and Neale out, Hughson and Millen in!

Back to work today and busy catching-up but had to take time to share this happy news:

Changes to Hockey Night in Canada will come sooner than later, according to insiders, the biggest of which will involve announcer Jim Hughson and analyst Greg Millen taking over as the top play-by-play team.

The return of Bob Cole and Harry Neale appears probable, but in a reduced role. Neale said yesterday he's awaiting final word about his status.

About time, says I. Cole's performance has gotten embarrassing, and his pro-Leaf boosterism has always been nauseating. I've always like Hughson's work, from the Jays on TSN to the Canucks on NW and then SportsNet. Millen is good too. Now just replace Ron MacLean with Elliiot Friedman, and Don Cherry with Kelly Hrudey, and we'll be getting somewhere.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On competitiveness and politics

A few interesting articles were highlighted by Woman at Mile O this morning around the issue of economic competitiveness and health care.

It started with comments by Hillary Clinton, who of course is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in the U.S. She recently told a union audience that U.S. jobs are bleeding to Canada because heath care costs are so high in the U.S. that Canada’s medicare system is giving us a competitive advantage.

This got autoworker union boss Buzz Hargrove in a snit, who said both countries are losing jobs to overseas imports. The Ontario Liberal government chimed in to, sending Finance Minister Greg Sorbara out to note the economic pressures being faced by Ontario manufacturers.

It seems everyone is trying to paint a bad picture in their jurisdiction (the cynic would say so they can come in and fix it). I think everyone is right though, and everyone is also being a bit selective in their comments. The manufacturing sector in Central Canada and the U.S. is hurting, with overseas imports a definite contributing factor. The high tech sector is on the upswing though and growing strongly, that’s where the job growth is occurring.

I think Clinton overstates her case slightly, I’m not sure jobs are flowing wholesale from the U.S. into Canada. But she is most definitely right when she says Canada’s healthcare system is a competitive advantage. It very much is.

And it’s so often overlooked when the business lobby whines about things like productivity or infrastructure investment, where we compare unfavourably to the U.S. While they’re really just after government concessions and tax breaks they are right, we do have work to do in some areas.

But they nearly always overlook the areas where we do have competitive advantages. Like quality of life. A happy worker is a more productive worker, so quality of life is important to both employees and employers. Like the quality of the public education system, access to recreation and leisure activities, crime and safety. R&D tax credits.

And health care. This is a major issue for both employees and employers. In the private health insurance system of the U.S. many working Americans can’t afford coverage. And to attract talent, many U.S. companies purchase private coverage for their employees, at a huge cost to the business.

In Canada, they don’t have that cost. Employees know they have access to universal Medicare, and the employer doesn’t have to shell out a fortune for it. That is a huge competitive advantage that can’t be understated, Clinton is absolutely right.

A few years ago I was invited down to the Cary, North Carolina headquarters of SAS, the world’s largest privately held software company. It’s founder and president, Jim Goodnight, is a billionaire several times over and with no stockholders to satisfy, the profits are his. But his business success is driven by employee talent, and so he has invested heavily to attract the best.

His Cary campus illustrates many of the challenges businesses in the U.S. face. It is huge and sprawling, and resembles a gated community. In addition to sports fields, recreation centres, theatres and day cares he has even built a private hospital/clinic for SAS employees. As a staunch Republican Goodnight probably wouldn’t put it this way, but in order to attract and retain talent he has had to spend big money, and it’s on things that in Canada, are provided by various levels of government as a matter of course. While there’s other factors that influence where one sets up show, how much money would SAS save were its headquarters in Canada? They wouldn’t need that hospital, for one.

So yes, we have work to do around improving the business climate in Canada. But let’s talk up our advantages too and Hillary is right, health care is a one of them.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Myron hangs-up his cowboy hat

Veteran Conservative/Alliance/Reform MP Myron Thompson has announced he won’t be running in the next election. Another rat fleeing a sinking ship, indictment of Deceivin’ Steven’s leadership, yada yada?

Nah, that’s crap. People retire, and he’s just old. And he probably wanted to go out on a high, having recently been named, once again, the Worst Dressed Male MP by readers of The Hill Times. I guess there was just nothing left for Myron to accomplish.

As dual Canadian/U.S. citizen who served in the US Army, Myron will no longer have to not face questions about whether he voted in American elections or where his loyalties truly lie, since because everyone knows such questions are only relevant if you hold dual French citizenship.

And our political discourse will also be lessened without such sage words of wisdom as these:

"We have said all along, and I have said all along, that this (topic of same-sex marriage) is a door to slippery slope. What's next? Polygamist? What about child rights? Where is this going to end?"
(Myron Thompson, Carstairs Courier, January 25, 2005)

"I'm saying with this a door opening to a slippery slope. What's next? Shall we say it's okay to have six or seven wives, even if some of them are 13-years-old? Where does it end?"
(Myron Thompson, Carstairs Courier, December 14, 2004)

While we’ll miss Myron, the bigger question is who will take his crown next year as worst dressed male MP. As for filling his role as a provider of dumbass comments, I think the CPC caucus has that one well in hand. Young Pierre Pollivere is growing into the role nicely, and Cheryl Gallant is always a clutch performer.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On marketing and accounting

I flew down to Las Vegas Sunday night for a conference (up $30 so far), so I’m missing much of the excitement around the Conservative/Nascar/Bourque kerfuffle. Perhaps the fact that I’m following it from afar that explains why I can’t get seem to worked-up about it.

The progressive blogsphere is certainly having fun with it, and power to them. There’s plenty of material to work with, and it is a pretty transparent exercise by the Cons. Heck, you can’t really even call it transparent; they flat-out said this was about reaching out to so-called middle class voters. As Wells dryly noted, if that strategy was working they wouldn’t be spelling it out to reporters it, now would they? Thou doth brief too muchly, and so forth.

Myself, I don’t think Deceivin’ Steven watches Nascar (is he pretending to write a book on that too?) anymore than he actually drinks Tim Horton’s outside of photo-ops. I know a Starbucks man when I see one. Not that I could give a crap what sports a politician watches or what caffeinated beverage they drink. I’m more concerned about their policies. Unless they drink Coke Zero, then they’ve got my vote for sure.

What this Nascar announcement serves to highlight for me more than anything is the absolute dearth of ideas or anything resembling a policy agenda from this Conservative government. I’m just surprised they didn’t name the car the Not A Leader and pain a picture of Dion with a flipper-tail wearing a beret on the car's hood. Though I’m quite sure it was considered.

Anyway, we’ll have our fun with this (it is the summer, crazy hot here in Vegas) and Ted’s poster contest is a great idea, but in the end Harper will rise or fall on the basis of his policies, not his sponsorships. That's not to say the next time Harper is in front of a microphone he shouldn't be quizzed on his favourite Nascar driver, race predictions and so forth.

As for the fact it’s everybody’s favourite headlines (for sale) aggregator that the Cons are sponsoring, well that’s just funny. If everyone knew the Cons or their supporters were buying pro-Con, anti-Lib headlines on the site before now it simply can’t be denied. I think most people in search of less tourqued news have already moved on though anyway.

What I’m more interested in, as I’ve said in the past, is the financial relationship between Bourque.com and the Conservative Party. Obviously this spending will need to be disclosed. But this news today makes it even less unlikely they haven’t been buying headlines on the site in the past.

As I’ve asked before, the question we should be asking is did the CPC purchase any sponsorship on Bourque.com, either directly or through an intermediary, during the last election campaign? And if so, was the spending properly disclosed by the CPC under the regulations governing election spending? That’s what I’d really like to know.

That, and how the hell you play craps? It looks so complicated. In the meantime, I’ll stick to roulette and my new favorite, blackjack.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

We're gonna party like it’s 2000?

Stephane Dion gave a speech yesterday to a meeting of the LPC's Quebec wing. It's not on the Web yet so I haven’t read it, but to hear the media tell it (and it's being picked-up widely), it seems the highlight was a staunch defence of the Clarity Act:

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion says if Quebec secedes from Canada it will be due to a clear vote, not a cloud of confusion stirred by sovereigntists.

“Because I love Quebec, I want my country and my province, Quebec, to be served by clarity instead of confusion,” he told party members and supporters Saturday in Drummondville, Que., 100 kilometers northeast of Montreal.

As I said, not having read the actual speech it’s impossible for me to say if this was its focus, or just a few lines that the media decided to focus on. So I don’t know if this is a strategy here or not. If it is while it’s interesting, I’m not disliking it.

Certainly I’m a big fan of the Clarity Act, and for staunch defence of it. Seemed kind of lonely a few years ago when Jean Lapierre was crapping on it. And I'm a fan of Dion’s role in it. If many people knew of him before the leadership for anything, that was it. It was the kind of leadership that Stephane showed in staring down the separatists that attracted many Liberals to him in the first place. If he could recapture that fire and the passion that he showed during that time we’d be in great shape.

I know there’s not exactly a separatist threat on the horizon, which will lead some to question why such talk, and there is a line to be tread. But the fact is there is an ongoing debate about federalism, and Quebec’s role in Canada, that the LPC needs to re-engage in.

Certainly Dion’s comments won’t be popular in certain Quebec circles. Doesn’t mean they won’t resonate in others though.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Peter Mansbridge made me attack those police

I’ve heard of blaming the media before, but this is just stupid:

Organizers of an anti-free-trade protest in Halifax are blaming the media for the violence that erupted, saying the only way to get their message across is to produce images news outlets would "salivate" over.

I don’t know, sounding like a total dumbass may help you get media attention too…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Canadian dies in Pakistan, Harper’s brain says who cares?

Interesting story at MacLeans.ca, made even more interesting by the follow-up comment posted by Tom Flanagan, a senior advisor to PM Deceivin’ Steven. Harper’s Karl Rove, if you will.

The article concerns the death of a Canadian woman of Pakistani descent under mysterious circumstances. Forcible confinement has been alleged, and a Pakistani cabinet minister has been charged with her murder.

The death of a Canadian women under mysterious circumstances abroad, a high ranking government official alleged to be involved. Surely something Foreign Affairs could at least look into. Back in Canada her husband seems to think so, but instead there seems to have been silence.

And how does senior Conservative advisor Flanagan respond?

Sorry, but I don't see why Canadians should get particularly concerned about this. A woman makes a personal decision to leave her husband and two-year-old child, goes back to Pakistan to pursue business opportunities, moves in with another man, and something happens to her. Not exactly a big surprise. Unless there's some evidence that the government of Pakistan mistreated her, I don't see what the role of the government of Canada should be.

Everyone knows Pakistan is a dangerous place. I have a friend from Pakistan who says it's become so dangerous that he won't be able to go back to visit his family again. Mrs. Sidiqqui must have had the same knowledge when she decided to move back there.

I guess that’s what they call compassionate conservatism. Canadian died overseas? Yawn. Go to Pakistan and you take your chances for it I guess. Then there’s the subtle implications with lines like “moves in with another man.” Guess she was asking for it, right Tom? No family values, so she had it coming.

Hmm, were you speaking for Deceivin' Steven there or not Tom?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Maybe try governing guys

As we head into the summer break it’s natural to get reflective. And helpful perhaps to look at the bigger picture, which can be tough to do during the day to day partisan cut and thrust.

Taking stock, no one has much to be happy about. That includes my Liberals although, as a biased partisan, I’d have to say I’m pleased to have avoided what could have been a deadly spring election, and at the heat Deceivin’ Steven has been taking of late.

If I were the Conservatives I’d be even more disappointed though. It wasn’t that look ago that everything was coming up Harper. High popularity for Harper himself, voter support numbers just shy of majority territory. The environment issue hopefully neutralized, gains in Quebec. Liberals stagnating in the polls, and the not a leader attack ads doing their job sapping Dion’s personal popularity. The budget would be their springboard to a spring election and at least a more comfortable minority, if not a slim majority or better.

Instead here we are going into the summer with the Liberals three points ahead (in one survey anyway), a siege in Atlantic Canada, sagging Con fortunes in Quebec and a chance for Dion to turn things around on the bbq circuit. Where did it all go wrong for Deceivin’ Steven?

It would be tough to pin-point just one moment. Whether it’s the fight with the Atlantic provinces, Afghanistan detainees, the Afghan war itself, an embarrassing performance at the G8, defence contracting, the RCMP, committee fascism, the Wheat Board battle, income trusts or a host of other screw-ups, it’s been a bad stretch for the Cons.

Part of it may be Harper beginning to believe his own press clippings and let his arrogance and controlling tendencies began to surface. Another major factor was also likely the fact the Cons ran out of script; they had no agenda left and started to ad lib. We’ve seen the pattern before, witness the Con rise and fall in election 2004. Nearly cost him in 05/06 too.

A very salient point is raised though in an article by the CP’s Bruce Cheadle, and it’s bang on the money. The Conservatives have been spending far more time attacking the Liberals than they have governing. And it’s just not working.

Really, just what did the Cons accomplish this spring?

Writes Cheadle:

If it's difficult to pinpoint Conservative advances this spring, it is in no small measure because the government is fixated with attacking Liberals.

The Conservative party web site, under the slogan "Getting Things Done for All of Us," is a daily barrage of attacks on Liberal Leader Stephane Dion personally and the Opposition generally.

The party spent untold - and undisclosed, non-reportable - dollars buying unprecedented attack ads outside an election campaign period.

Responses by government ministers in the daily question period sounded curiously like opposition harangues.

The prime minister himself set the tone with sharply partisan jibes that equated Liberals to Taliban supporters and smeared the father-in-law of a Liberal MP as being part of the Air India terror investigation.

And this exchange Cheadle reports between a reporter and a Harper minister really says it all:

Consider this end-of-session exchange with Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn:

Reporter: "Can you name two or three bills that were adopted by your government this session . . . ?"

Blackburn: "I would rather talk to you more about the bills that the opposition parties are often trying not to get adopted."

And that’s the problem. The Cons have succeeded this spring in keeping Liberal numbers stagnant. Call that 50 per cent mission accomplished, and we Liberals have our own not minor challenges there. But Harper’s other mission was to get his own numbers into majority territory. And not only has he failed, but his constant attacks and lack of agenda have caused him to lose ground, and put him in a statistical deadhead with the Liberals.

The Cons like to say Dion is not a leader, but Harper led his government from majority territory and expected strong gains in a potential spring election to a dead heat that has given Dion and the Liberals new life. Some leadership there Steven.

Now it’s anybody’s game. It’s going to be a long, hot summer.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Rivers in Egypt

Gerry Nicholls, whom may or may not have been ousted from his post with the right-wing National Citizens Coalition for badmouthing Deceivin’ Steven, attempts to diagnose Conservative troubles with a column in the Windsor Star today.

And while he makes some good points, he also falls into the same tired excuses used by so many Conservative apologists when expressing their disappointment with the Harper government.

Gerry’s thesis is that Harper is in danger of losing his base because he’s flip-flopping more than a fish out of water and is wildly trying to latch onto any policy idea he thinks will win him votes in his majority quest:

How are the Tories angering their base?

Well, take your pick.

There's the Tory flip-flop on income trusts, the pandering to Quebec nationalists, the

"Liberal-Lite" big spending budget or the Green Plan with its ridiculous light bulb ban.

All these actions represent a backtracking on conservative principles and values and all these actions have angered grassroots Conservatives

And simply put, that's just plain dumb.

I’ll agree with Gerry on a few things. On Harper being dumb (or rather acting dumb) I’m onboard. Dido the flip-flopping and the pandering. I’m not sure how environmentally-friendly light bulbs are a betrayal of Conservative values (ed: maybe they’re same-sex light bulbs?) but whatever.

Here’s where Gerry and I part ways though:

The Conservatives, in other words, have decided to act like Liberals.

And I guess it's a good plan except for one teensy-weensy problem: It isn't working.

This is a common refrain heard from dissatisfied Conservatives like Gerry, and it’s crap. It illustrates head in the sand thinking that conveniently allows them to skip over any needed self-introspection to address their problems.

The fact is Deceivin’ Steven’s Cons aren’t acting like Liberals. Maybe if they were they wouldn’t be free-falling in the polls.

But Liberals don’t cut funding to the Status of Women or kill the Court Challenges program. Liberals don’t bully province and invite them to sue. Liberals don’t raise income taxes. Liberals don’t run relentlessly negative attack ads outside of elections. Liberals don’t attack the families of political leaders, or question their loyalty to Canada. Or make fun of their ethnicity, or their accents.

Sorry Gerry, but Harper isn’t acting like a Liberal. He’s acting like a jerk. Is the problem really that Harper is acting “too Liberal” Gerry, or is it that most Canadians just aren’t buying what he’s selling?

Incidentally, even if Harper is doing a poor job of "acting like a Liberal" doesn't the fact he feels obligated to even try say something about the appeal of Conservatism in Canada?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Look over here! Shiny!

Besides it being incredibly dumb, I’m not surprised this whole ordinary family nonsense was started by the Deceivin’ Steven’s First Blogger the evening of the budget vote. It practically screams out ‘hey, forget what incompetent boobs we’re being right now and look over here!’

I think Ted and the others he has linked to have done a good job of exposing the stupidity of Taylor’s ‘thesis.’ Rather than pile on, I’d like to keep the focus on the incompetent bunging (ed: should that be competent bungling? because they seem so good at it.) of Deceivin’ Steven’ and company.

Last night the budget vote passed with the help of the separatist Bloc Quebecois. Voting no was the exiled Bill Casey, kicked out of the Conservative caucus for standing on principle. Harper was able to bully the less principled Gerald ‘unsteady’ Keddy into line however (impressive given he'll be sleeping on the couch now) and as for his other Nova Scotia MP, well Peter McKay and principles haven’t been mentioned in the same sentence for years.

So while the earthquake may have passed (the Senate may bluster but they won’t mess with a money bill) the aftershocks will continue, and the damage won’t be clear until the next election

Interesting observations though today in the Post from John Ivison who, while he thinks Harper is right on the facts, thinks the man once hailed (ed: by his supporters) as a master political strategist couldn’t have handled this worse:

The question is -- armed with such a compelling case -- how has the Prime Minister contrived to come across like a schoolyard bully, threatening lawsuits against all dissenters?

Conservative MPs, staffers and supporters are united in their condemnation of the way the issue has been handled by the Prime Minister's Office. "The people in PMO communications meant to help MPs understand the audience don't get them. They don't get the pride, the passion and the tribalism of the East," said one source.

"Dropping a sledgehammer on two of the provinces that endorsed you at the last election is not exactly the way to say 'thank you' on a file that clearly touches a chord in Atlantic Canada," said another senior Conservative.

This government's obsession with secrecy and control will be its downfall. The Conservative party has a front-bench overflowing with natural communicators and a strong story to tell, yet it seems either reluctant or unable to do so. It takes a real organizational talent to fritter away that advantage.

Rather than consider the advice, I suspect the Harper PMO is instead about to launch a mole hunt for the anonymous staffers. And let me say, as a partisan Liberal, it sure is nice to see anonymous senior Conservatives talking smack about their party in the media for a change. Not a leader, yada yada.

Meanwhile, I’m going to Las Vegas next week but I suspect it’s too late to clean-up with a long odds bet on Elizabeth May to take Central Nova. Should have put some cash down a few months ago, as I bet the oddsmakers have already adjusted the line, as the mood in Nova seems ugly:

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, Nova Scotia’s embattled representative in the cabinet, has kept a low profile since the province’s Conservative premier and one of its Tory MPs started denouncing the federal budget as an abject betrayal.

But in his riding of Central Nova, local residents had plenty to say Tuesday about their MP and his chances for re-election.

“I voted for Peter MacKay, but I would have a hard time voting for him anymore,” said Linda MacDonald of Westville as she sat in a local coffee shop.

“I have watched him on many issues turn about face.... That’s a real issue with me right now.”

Her friend, George MacDonald, said he was impressed by the stand taken by maverick MP Bill Casey, who was thrown out of the Conservative caucus last week for voting against a budget implementation bill.

I’ll give the last word to 2004 Deceivin’ Steven (not to be confused with 2007 Deceivin’ Steven):

"What is at issue is very simple. It is the honour of the Prime Minister, and all he has to do is keep his word."

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Decivin' Steven on the Atlantic Accord, circa 2004

God bless Hansard. Here’s what Decivin' Steven was saying about the Atlantic Accord and election promises less than three years ago...(h/t tony)

38th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 022
CONTENTS
Thursday, November 4, 2004

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) moved:

That this House deplore the attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada at and following the First Ministers' Conference of October 26, 2004, and that it call on the federal government to immediately implement its pledges of June 5 and 27, 2004, to allow the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia to keep 100% of their provincial offshore oil and gas revenues.

He said: Mr. Speaker,I will be splitting my time with our deputy leader from Central Nova.

On June 5 of this year the Prime Minister arrived in St. John's, the capital of Newfoundland and Labrador. The context was the following. Obviously it was an election campaign when the Prime Minister was asked to respond to a longstanding Conservative commitment to ensure that the Atlantic provinces would enjoy 100% of their non-renewable resource royalties.

This is a commitment that was made by me in my capacity as leader of the Canadian Alliance when I first arrived here and has its origins in the intentions of the Atlantic accord signed by former Prime Minister Mulroney in the mid-1980s. These are longstanding commitments, our commitment to 100% of non-renewable resource royalties. It was our commitment during the election, before the election, and it remains our commitment today.

For the Prime Minister, this was something that he had opposed for 11 years and for most of his political career. But suddenly in the midst of an election campaign on June 5, he met with Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams. He came out of that meeting and said the following:

"I believe that Newfoundland and Labrador ought to be the primary beneficiary of the offshore resources, and what I have said to the premier is that I believe the proposal that he has put forth certainly provides the basis of an agreement between the two of us."

Premier Williams specified in a letter dated June 10 that:

'The proposal my government made to you and your Minister of Natural Resources provides for 100% of direct provincial revenues generated by the petroleum resources in the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area, to accrue to the government of Newfoundland and Labrador and be sheltered from the clawback provisions of the equalization formula--'

The Prime Minister said he agreed with the Premier's proposal and he gave his word as Prime Minister of Canada. Premier Williams was asked at the press conference announcing the deal how he could be sure the Prime Minister would keep his word after the election. He replied that as a man of honour, that the solemn word of the Prime Minister was sufficient. Premier Williams said: “It's by word of mouth, and I'm taking him at his word, and that's good enough for me”.

Unfortunately, the solemn word of this Prime Minister turned out to be not good enough. The Prime Minister ignored letters from Premier Williams on June 10, August 5 and August 24 urging him to confirm his promise. Suddenly, the Prime Minister and his Minister of Natural Resources fell silent.

Finally, on October 24, two days before the first ministers' conference, the Minister of Finance finally replied offering:

--additional annual payments that will ensure the province effectively retains 100 per cent of its offshore revenues--

Then the minister added two big exceptions limiting the offer:

--for an eight-year period covering 2004-05 through 2011-12, subject to the provision that no such additional payments result in the fiscal capacity of the province exceeding that of the province of Ontario in any given year.

The eight year time limit and the Ontario clause effectively gutted the commitment made to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador during the election campaign.

Why should Newfoundland's possibility of achieving levels of prosperity comparable to the rest of Canada be limited to an artificial eight year period? Remember in particular that these are in any case non-renewable resources that will run out. Why is the government so eager to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador always remain below the economic level of Ontario?

The Ontario clause is unfair and insulting to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and its message to that province, to Nova Scotia and to all of Atlantic Canada is absolutely clear. They can only get what they were promised if they agree to remain have not provinces forever. That is absolutely unacceptable.

Hon. Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, CPC): Everyone in Canada would be happy if one day our Atlantic provinces could fully benefit from their natural resources, everyone except the federal Liberals.

The Liberal attitude is as typical as it is senseless. There is no point pulling back non-renewable resource revenues from a have not province. This is an opportunity and it is a one time opportunity. It is a short term opportunity to allow these provinces to kick-start their economic development, to get out of have not status, to grow this short run opportunity into long run growth and revenue that will be paid back to Ottawa over and over again and that will benefit the people of those regions of Canada for a very long time.

This is what happened in the case of my province of Alberta. Alberta discovered oil and gas in the 1940s and 1950s, Alberta was a have not province. From 1957 until 1965, Alberta received transfers from the equalization program. Alberta was allowed to keep 100% of its oil royalties and there was no federal clawback. This is what allowed Alberta to kick-start its economy, to expand and diversify, to build universities, to advance social services and to become one of the powerhouses of the 21st century Canadian economy.

Of course the Liberals expended endless effort to limit the growth of Alberta's revenues, culminating in the experience of the national energy program. Now we see already, with this opportunity in Atlantic Canada, the same attempts to limit the opportunity. The Prime Minister's Ontario cap effectively limits the maximum benefit of the offshore resource to $452 per person in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. After that, every dollar will be clawed back by Ottawa, no matter how many billions the offshore resource turns out to be worth.

The Prime Minister, before he was here, was president of a company that largely depended on offshore activity. Does he not understand that energy resources are finite, temporary and a short term opportunity? The provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia should be allowed, indeed should be encouraged, to improve the living conditions of their citizens and to use this to attract new long term businesses to replace the temporary opportunities provided by the offshore resources.

Instead, when the Atlantic provinces rejected the latest federal offers, the caps, the limits and the exclusions, the government engaged in a clumsy divide and conquer tactic, a tactic which gave away its obvious objective of holding back the development of the Atlantic provinces. It has tried to negotiate with one province and not the other, but both Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia have made clear that their positions are the same and that they want to be dealt with fairly and at the same time.

Whether we live in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Alberta or anywhere else, we are all Canadians. We all have a right to a better future. That future is not for the Liberal Party to decide to speed up or to slow down, to start or to stop. It is not to negotiate. The Prime Minister gave his word. The terms of his proposal were clear. Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia requested and were promised 100% of their offshore revenues without equalization clawback, period. There is nothing to negotiate.

What is at stake is the future of Atlantic Canada, an unprecedented and historic opportunity for those provinces to get out of the have not status that has bedevilled them for decades. What is at issue is very simple. It is the honour of the Prime Minister, and all he has to do is keep his word.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

New poll has Liberals ahead of Cons by 3

After a few months of polls have had the Conservatives statistically ahead of the Liberals but within the margin of error, now Decima has the Liberals ahead by 3, but within the margin of error.

I like the trends, though I’d still like to see more yeast in the Liberal numbers. Still, nice to see. Note the regional numbers too, Libs at 39 in Ontario and 7 up on the Cons in Quebec.

I trust the Blogging Tories will be busy explaining how this puts Decivin’ Steven one step closer to a majority, how he has the Liberals right where he wants them, and how Harper is such a strategic genius.

But seriously, for the Conservatives this should serve as a wake-up call. Whether it will or not is another matter, it could be blown off as within the margin of error. That would be a head in sand move though, the trends have become clear. They need to smarten-up.

For the Liberals, while heartening it's not a cause for jubilation. They say governments defeat themselves, and Decivin' Steven is doing his part. But while his numbers have declined ours haven't budged. We need to start capitalizing on Conservative weakness better.

Conservatives have fallen three percentage points behind the Liberals: Poll

OTTAWA (CP) - A new poll suggests the federal Conservatives have fallen three percentage points behind the Liberals in popular support, still within the survey's margin of error but a trend the Harper government would no doubt like to reverse.

The poll by Decima Research, provided exclusively to The Canadian Press, placed Liberal support at 32 per cent, the Conservatives at 29 and the NDP at 18. The Bloc Quebecois and Green party were tied nationally at nine per cent.

The telephone survey of just more than 1,000 Canadians was conducted from last Thursday until Monday.

(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Flaherty has a tantrum

Looks like the stress of his sheer incompetence is starting to catch-up with Decivin’ Steven’s Mike Harris-trained finance minister, Jim Flaherty. He just has a temper tantrum on the floor of the House of Commons.

As Garth Turner reports, Liberal MP Blair Wilson was presenting a petition for his constituents about the broken Harper promise not to tax income trusts, a broken promise that cost some 2 million Canadians over $25 billion.

Garth reports:

Mr. Flaherty, at this moment, starts to mutter and heckle under his breath. He looks hostile and angry.

“The petitioners therefore call upon the Conservative minority government to admit that the decision to tax income trusts was based on flawed methodology and incorrect assumptions,” my colleague continued, “secondly, to apologize to those who were unfairly harmed by this broken promise, and finally to repeal the 31.5% tax on income trusts.”

By this time Flaherty is in full voice, calling across the aisle at the MP reading. He repeats over and again, “That’s so stupid.”

Ladies and gentleman, your Minister of Finance. Yes Jim, the concerns of millions of Canadians whose life savings you wiped-out are “stupid.” Canadians whom you were elected to represent, whom you swore an oath to serve. Stupid. Classy Jim.

At least he didn’t cry “this is unfair!”

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

So sue me!

That’s the headline on the cover of 24 Hours in the T-Dot this morning, along with a picture of Steve Harper. The topic, of course, is the rapidly escalating feud between Decivin’ Steven, much of Atlantic Canada led by two Conservative Premiers and apparently a growing portion of his (soon to be decimated) Atlantic caucus.

Sources at Sun Media tell me their second choice for a head line was “The long, tiring, unproductive era of bickering between the federal and provincial governments is over” followed by a LOL, but it was just too long.

As I think back to that utterly ridiculous quote from Jim Flaherty I’m tempted to make an allusion to Neville Chamberlain’s waving that piece of paper and declaring peace in our time, but then I’d only be accused of comparing someone to Nazis, which I’m not, so I just won’t go there. And unlike Neville, I don’t think Jim actually believed it.

Where to start with this mess though? It’s hard to contain my glee. How about with Decivin’ Steven’s gunslinger declaration yesterday to take this Atlantic Accord, misunderstanding shall we say, to the courts for clarification. Is this the same Decivin’ Steven that railed against activist judges, judicial interference in politics, judge-made law, the supremacy of parliament, yada yada?

Is this the same Decivin’ Steven that a scant week ago ignored the requests of a number of provinces, Liberal senators and constitutional experts to refer his hair-brained, half-baked Senate “reform” package to the Supreme Court for an opinion on its constitutionality?

I’d rather not focus on the fact that he’s flip-flopping more than Flipper. Though he totally is. Instead, I’ll just say now that he’s come around lets just refer that Senate bill to the courts too, shall we? No apology necessary.

Because the hits keep coming for Decivin’ Steven. He lost Bill Casey last week. The pressure has also been on Gerald Keddy, another Conservative MP from Nova Scotia, to break ranks and vote against the budget too. He’s married to a Nova Scotia Conservative MLA and minister; they’re on vacation right now and you can be sure he’s hearing it from her since her boss, the Conservative premier, is calling on Nova Scotians everywhere to remember their homeland and vote no.

And the split may rise all the way to the Harper cabinet as well. I was talking to Peter McKay’s dog again yesterday and he had some juicy gossip. Apparently, the PMO wanted his master to sign a letter to the editor saying there would be no side deals. Peter said no-way, so they got Jim Flaherty to sign it instead. It was published Saturday and inflamed things even further, and McKay is said to feel blindsided. McKay has been trying to negotiate a deal between Nova Scotia and Harper, what with his political future (such as it is) on the line and all, and the letter essentially cuts his feet out from under him.

It’s not looking good for Harper right now, and it’s really not looking good for Conservatives in the Atlantic provinces. One is reminded of the decimation of the Liberals there after the EI reforms, I think it was in 1997. This is looking worse for the Cons though. I love this graph of Newfoundland support (h/t Ed) and the way the lines diverge:

Revolt in his caucus, revolt in his cabinet, Conservative premiers revolting, threatening to take provinces to court…remind me again who is not a leader, will you Steve?

If only we had the money for attack ads. Unlike Decivin’ Steven we actually have a lot of material to work with…

Around the blogsphere: Jason says it’s time for Peter to man-up, Ed sums it all up in their own words, Devin has issued a challenge, Red has a good question and Scott is getting out the popcorn. As well, Dan also sees shades of EI and 1997, Miranda wonders if Harper is trying to protect Flaherty, KNB has a theory, and Steve also likes nautical analogies.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Apparently Cartman moved to England

Fans of South Park will remember the Ginger Kids episode, where Cartman leads a crusade against so-called ginger kids…

Cartman: Because their skin is so light, ginger kids must avoid the sun, not unlike... (changes slides) vampires

…and then when his friends die his hair red to teach him a lesson, he leads the other ginger kids in rebellion.

Cartman: (over a megaphone) We gingers are proud people. We are the descendants of great Americans such as Ron Howard and others. We will not be discriminated against any longer, for we are a great race.

Well, fiction seems to be meeting reality with this very odd story out of England. And all joking aside, what the hiseck is going on over there anyway?

Red-haired family forced to move

A Newcastle family claim they have been forced from two homes by thugs who have targeted them over their ginger hair.

Kevin and Barbara Chapman say they and their four children, aged between 10 and 13, have endured years of taunts, smashed windows and violence.

They said they moved from Walker to Newbiggin Hall to try to escape the bullying, and then again to Kenton Bar.

Son Kevin, 11, said he was recently punched in a street attack. Newcastle Council is "discussing the situation".
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Longest Campaign

We may still be some four months away from the Ontario election and the writ won’t be officially dropped for quite some time yet but make no mistake, the campaign has already begun in earnest.

As an aside, this is one of the arguments to be made against fixed election dates: the exceedingly long campaign period, starting well before the official campaign begins. It’s going to be a long, hot summer.

A little light-hearted comedy can help with the electoral humidity though, and the provincial Liberals are doing their part with ToryTube.ca. There’s no fake blog from John Tory’s goldfish, but the multimedia Web site takes a comedic approach to pointing out some of the inconsistencies, glaring omissions and downright whoppers coming out of the provincial Conservatives. It’s worth a look.

Speaking of comedy, although of the unintentional variety, the John Tory Conservatives have another an attack ad out. Because like his federal friend Decivin’ Steven, he seems to have little of substance to offer. The ad though, which attempts to smear McGuinty as a fibber, does so by comparing him to several U.S. presidents, including Bill Clinton (h/t Darren):



Now, as Jason points out Bill is pretty darned popular in Ontario so the value of such a comparison for the Tory Cons is dubious at best. They also compare McGuinty to Republican presidents Nixon and Bush the Elder, they’re probably not as popular here.

Let me ask my Conservative friends this, however. Particularly those who were up in arms when the Martin Liberals referenced our American cousins in the last federal campaign. Where’s your outrage about the Americans being used as political bogeyman now guys? Where are the posts glowing with white hot rage at this American bashing? Anyone? Hello?

While I’m not holding my breath, this weekend was of course the provincial Conservative convention here in the T-Dot. This year’s theme: Mike who? No we’re totally moderate, honest.

I blogged earlier about Super John’s plans to cut taxes by billions while maintaining health care spending in a single bound, and he is still at it. Now, in addition to cutting the health premium while finding billions in “efficiencies” to not only replace that health funding but increase it, while lowering taxes elsewhere too, Tory is now also going to spend billions more on transit too and increase funding for “faith-based” schools.

Still no word though on how he is going to pay for this without plunging the province back into another Eves/Harris style deficit, or just where he intends to find these billions in “efficiencies” or what programs he’ll cut to get there.

But trust him. He’s Super John.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Best CNN Breaking News E-mail EVER

-- A judge orders Paris Hilton back to jail, CNN confirms. She was taken from court screaming, The Associated Press reports.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Your unfair partisan snark(s) of the day

Hey, I wonder if Vladimir is pretending to write a book about hockey too?

Putin talks hockey with Harper
By ALEXANDER PANETTA
HEILIGENDAMM, Germany (CP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin used a little hockey diplomacy Thursday to diffuse any possible tension at the start of a meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
(more)

BONUS UNFAIR SNARK: They both like hockey, they both hate free media…man; these guys are going to get along great…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Belief stretcher of the day

This quote is actually from a piece in the Star yesterday, about the dismal performance of Con defence minister Gordon O'Connor, and how his cabinet days may well be numbered. However, it's ridiculous enough to share still.

The quote is from retired Army general Lewis MacKenzie, whom the paper forgets to mention is also a prominent Conservative supporter and a failed candidate for the party. Said MacKenzie on the O'Connor train wreck:

"I would imagine that the Prime Minister – and this is just speculation – is pretty happy with the performance of his defence minister," he said.

Say what you will about Decivin’ Steven there Lew, and lord knows I’ve said plenty, but he’s no dummy. He may well continue to resist calls to dump O’Connor but that will be because of politics and stubbornness and nothing else.

I’m quite certain that Harper is most definitely NOT happy with the performance of his defence minister. How on earth could he be? I won’t catalogue the long laundry list of O’Connor screwups, but suffice to say his bungling has created many a headache for Decivin’ Steven.

Lew, Lew. How can someone even deliver such a line without giggling?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Guest blogger: Peter McKay’s rented dog

Oh, how on days like this I wish I was back on the potato farm!

It’s been a tough few days for my Master When There’s A Photo-op, with all this stuff around the budget and Peter breaking his promise to Maritimers about resource revenues. Why, I haven’t seen Petey this sad since that blonde meanie broke his heart, after we first met.

He’s been so busy flipping and flopping lately he hasn’t played ball with me in months!

And it’s even worse with that Bill Casey sticking to his principles and voting against the budget, doesn’t he know that makes Petey look like a total idiot? Those no-good Liberals were so mean to Petey in question period today:

Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.) :
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister broke his promise to Nova Scotians.

The so-called minister from Nova Scotia broke his word to a brave MP. The so-called minister from Nova Scotia values his cabinet seat more than his own province.

I ask the member for Central Nova, what does loyalty mean? Were those his words? Why can he not stand up for Nova Scotia? Is it because he cannot or because he will not? Will he resign as the minister irresponsible for Nova Scotia?

* * *
Hon. Jim Flaherty :

Mr. Speaker, personal attacks like that always say more about the person saying them than about the person receiving them. It is unattractive, I must say, to have those kinds of personal attacks here.

Those Liberals can say Peter Didn’t Get It Done all they want but I agree with Jimbo, anyone who levels personal attacks like these is Not A Leader. I mean, in the budget Peter had to make choices, and Do You Think It’s Easy To Set Priorities? Don’t they know only Conservatives are allowed to spend millions of dollars on nasty, personal negative attack ads?

I hope Peter will come back to the potato farm soon, I miss him so. Things just haven’t been the same since I escaped from Belinda’s condo and he started seeing that mean American woman for coffee at Timmy's.

At least I’m loyal Petey. At least I’m loyal!

Woof Woof.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Research indicates Dion is rubber, Harper is glue

This is too funny. To quote Nelson Muntz of Simpsons fame: Haaa Haaaa!

(h/t National Newswatch)

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
Dion Attack Ad Hurts Harper More in Canada
June 6, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - A television spot authorized by the Conservative party which questions Liberal leader Stéphane Dion has affected the views of Canadians on their prime minister, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 33 per cent of respondents say their opinion of Conservative leader Stephen Harper has worsened, while 24 per cent feel the same way about Dion.

The survey allowed respondents to watch the advertisement in their computers through an embedded video link. The television spot claims Dion "can’t even get his own Liberal senators to pass a bill limiting Senate terms." 47 per cent of respondents think the ad is not a fair and accurate representation of Dion.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Unfair partisan snark at the day

I continue to be astounded by Decivin' Steven, and it looks like his frosty treatment of the media is even worse than I thought. I mean, when the Putin Kremlin is more more forthcoming with the media than Harper's PMO you have to give your head a shake...

Kremlin says Putin, Harper to meet at G8 summit, but PMO mum

BERLIN (CP) - The Kremlin says Russian President Vladimir Putin is set to meet with Prime Minister Stephen Harper as G8 leaders gather later Wednesday at a German resort.

There has been no confirmation of the meeting from the Prime Minister's Office.
(more)

BONUS SNARK:

Decivin’ Stephen is making nice with the French? And going on a date with the President of France? Mon dieu, how cute. I can’t wait to read what Harper’s cat blogs about this…

French president promises to play nice with Harper on their first meeting

ALEX PANETTA

PARIS (CP) - On their first political date, a pair of budding allies moved quickly to smooth over two potential threats to their relationship: Afghanistan and climate change.

The newly elected president of France took Prime Minister Stephen Harper for a stroll through the streets of Paris to a fancy restaurant where they dined following their first official encounter Tuesday.

After meeting a fellow conservative who, like himself, seeks to leave his mark on a traditionally liberal country, Harper called French President Nicolas Sarkozy a great friend of Canada.

(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Super John? I think not

It's odd, Ontario Conservative Leader John Tory (he's the one on the right) doesn't look like a super hero, does he? And yet, he’s asking Ontarioins to believe that he’s capable of super-human feats.

No, he's not asking us to believe he can jump over tall buildings in a single bound – yet – but he is asking us to believe him capable of an equally stupendous feat.

Tory wants us to believe that, if elected, not only will be cancel the Ontario health premium, which pumps $2.6 billion into the health care system, but he’ll do it without lowering health care funding. He may even increase health spending. He also seems to have more tax cuts in mind. A chicken in every pot, and a side of tatters!

Given that Ontario’s budget (finally balanced after the $5.6 billion deficit the Liberals inherited from Tory’s “common sense” predecessors) registered at some $298 million, it would seem if Tory is going to pull off this super-human feat he’s going to need to find, roughly, $2.3 billion in cuts to make elsewhere in the budget.

And that’s without even factoring-in a slowing economy which will sap tax revenue, and the fact that the health budget will only be increasing. Plus whatever new spending Tory has planned. So, how does Super John plan to find $2.3 billion to have his cake and eat it too?

"There are huge waste and inefficiency examples across this government," Mr. Tory said. "I'm determined ... to find 2 per cent efficiencies in this government which will go a long way to allowing people to have some tax relief."

Ah, always a favorite of the fevered right-wing: efficiencies and waste. They always campaign on this, and it sounds great on a bumper sticker doesn’t it? Cut waste, waste bad, nobody likes waste. Problem is, when they get elected they discover there really isn’t much actual “waste” but just lots of programs that are needed by real people, programs that they’ll pay a steep political price for cutting.

So, I ask you John, if you’re not just talking out of your keester please, pray tell, let us know just how you plan to do this. Just saying “waste” won’t cut it. Exactly what programs and services will you be cutting to get to your $2.3 billion+? And why?

Or do you just want us to take it on faith when you're the same guys that left us with a big deficit?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Adler: Reality is what I say it is

Came across this rather amusing commentary at the National Post Web site from esteemed right-wing blowhard Charles Adler. It’s quite the twisted little bit of illogic to say the least.

Repeating the died in the wool mantra of the right that taxes are too high and tax cuts are a cure all, Charlie seems to downplay a recent Leger poll that said Quebecers don’t want tax cuts, and other polls of a similar nature. He doesn’t do a very good job though.

There are two secrets behind those polls. 1) They generally load the tax cut question with something like this: Would you like a tax cut or would you prefer that hospitals have enough doctors and nurses and medicine? 2) Many of the folks who respond to the pollsters tax cut questions don't pay taxes.

That’s not called a loaded question Charles, that’s called context.

The fact is, taxes pay for things, like services. People also want those services. So if you ask someone in isolation if they want a tax cut, they’ll say sure. If you ask someone in isolation if we should increase health spending, they’ll say sure. But ask someone if they’ll support cutting health spending to pay for a tax cut, or raising taxes to pay for more health spending, and you’ll get a much different question.

Asking either question in isolation would be useless. The questions as Charles laid out are entirely appropriate. Of course people favour tax cuts, the question is how important is it to them compared to other issues.

Once again, the Simpsons put it so well. This clip is from an episode where the teachers go on strike over wages. Fast-forward one minute in for a perfect illustration of the taxes vs. services debate, and the fallacy of Adler's argument.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

New poll: For entertainment purposes only

The folks at Ipsos Reid have another poll out today on federal voting intentions. Basically, the Cons and Libs remain in a statistical tie.

Not a surprising insight there. Actually the Cons dropped 3 points from their last survey while the Libs remained steady, but with a margin of error of 3 who can say. Since there’s little change though, in lieu of much fresh analysis here’s a link to what I said last time.

And here’s a pretty chart:

The margins of error for the regional numbers are so wild (from 5 in Ontario to 11.7 in Atlantic Canada) that there’s little meaningful analysis to be drawn from any of the changes. Being a biased Liberal though I’ll take pleasure in the Ontario and Atlantic numbers, choose to take optimism in the Quebec numbers, and write off the B.C. swing to the MOE.

It’s such a nice chart though, so for entertainment purposes only:

Also entertaining and slightly more interesting, if not any more meaningful, are the age and gender breakdowns. Unfortunately no pretty charts here, so we can’t look at any trends over time, which would be interesting. Are the Cons turning off even more women? Are Canada’s men turning away from the not so macho Dion? Enquiring minds want to know…

By gender, men favour the Conservatives (39%) over the Liberals (27%) by a 12-point margin, while women prefer the Liberals (34%) over the Conservatives (29%) by a five-point margin. The NDP draws higher support among women (17%) than among men (15%), while the Bloc (men, 9%; women, 10%) and Green Party (men, 8%; women, 9%) divide their support more equally between men and women.

By age, Conservatives continue enjoy an advantage among respondents 55 years and older (36%) and those 35 to 54 years of age (37%) as compared to the 18-to-34-year-old cohort (28%). The Liberals also enjoy greater support among those 55 years and older (36%) than among Canadians 18 to 34 years of age (28%). The NDP draws similar levels of support from those 18 to 34 years of age (15%), 35 to 54 years of age (17%) and those 55 years and older (15%). Support for both the Bloc Quebecois and Green Party skews younger, with 13 percent of those18 to 34 years of age supporting the Bloc and 15 percent supporting the Green Party compared to six percent among those 55 years and older supporting the Bloc and seven percent supporting the Green Party.

When I posted on another Ipsos poll on May 14 I also mentioned these gender and age breakdowns. Where both stats are in the releases I’ve included the change, if any below, again for entertainment purposes only.

Support from Men
Cons: 39 (+5)
Liberals: Liberals (-4)
NDP: 15 (-1)
BQ: 9 (+2)
Green: 8 (-1)

Support from Women
Liberals: 34 (-)
Cons: 29: (-)
NDP: 18 (+1)
BQ: 10 (+1)
Greens: 9 (-1)

Those 55 and over
Cons: 35 (-5)
Liberals: 36 (+5)

Those 18-34
Liberals: 28 (+1)
Cons: 28 (+4)
NDP: 15 (-7)
BQ: 13 (+2)
Greens: 15 (+1)

So, not sure to take from that comparison. Would seem though that guys thought it was a good few weeks for the Cons, while women weren’t impressed with anyone. The Cons took a hit with seniors and the Libs capitalized (income trusts perhaps, I think we need to more heavily court seniors) while something happened between the NDP and the kids while I wasn’t looking.

Till next time…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

New phrase of the day

I thought Phyrric was a typo but a quick trip to Google and I'd learned a new phrase. I still think it's a bit obscure to use for a headline on an IT story however...

From wikipedia:

A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with devastating cost to the victor. The phrase is an allusion to King Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose army suffered irreplaceable casualties when he defeated the Romans during the Pyrrhic War at Heraclea in 280 BC and Asculum in 279 BC. After the latter battle, Plutarch relates in a report by Dionysius:

“

The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one more such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward. On the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men, not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war.[1]

”

In both of Pyrrhus's victories, the Romans lost more men than Pyrrhus did. However, the Romans had a much larger supply of men from which to draw soldiers, so their losses did less damage to their war effort than Pyrrhus's losses did to his.

The report is often quoted as "Another such victory over the Romans and we are undone." While it is most closely associated with a military battle, the term is used by analogy in fields such as business, politics, law, literature, and sport to describe any similar struggle which is ruinous for the victor.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

What's this, I agree with Scott Reid?

It seems weird to me and yet, reading his op/ed in the Star this morning I found myself nodding my head in agreement: The Liberals should angle for a fall election.

If timing is everything in politics, then October 2007 is the right time for Stéphane Dion to do everything possible to force Stephen Harper into a general election.

If that sounds risky, consider the alternative. The Conservative Prime Minister clears his cabinet of chronic mistake machines like Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and reboots his policy agenda with new legislation. He then spends a year blitzing the airwaves with yet more negative political ads and finally, next March, triggers an election on his own terms after a budget of his own design.

His argument makes a lot of sense, and Scott paints an interesting scenario. While, at these point at least, a Fall election doesn’t look ideal the simple fact of the matter is that it isn’t likelier to get any more ideal than it will be this fall; indeed, for Liberal prospects barring the unforeseen it is only likelier to get worse.

If we let the fall go by Decivin' Steven will have had time to shuffle the deadwood out of his cabinet, put some attractive (if not effective) policy on the table (much of his current trouble can be traced to lack of an agenda) and to introduce another goody-laden budget. He’s likely to engineer his own defeat around that time under much more attractive (for him) conditions, making him much harder to beat.

The best-case scenario for the Liberals is a strong summer for Dion and the Liberal team on the BBQ circuit to try to give some boost to party support and, as well, his own flagging popularity numbers. Then, when the HoC comes back in the fall, likely with a Throne Speech after a Conservative prorogue, start playing hardball. Make the case on all the legislation the Cons killed by proroguing. Come into the session with a strong policy agenda of our own, and push hard on Throne Speech amendments.

Here’s Scott’s scenario:

Perhaps even more importantly, a scheduled confidence vote provides Dion with the chance to define himself in unmistakable terms.

Imagine a challenge to the Prime Minister in October that makes Liberal support contingent on three under-advertised but already-articulated Liberal priorities: broad-based personal income tax cuts for the middle class, proclamation of MP Pablo Rodriguez's Kyoto bill and an unequivocal declaration that our troops will be rotated out of Kandahar in February 2009.

Harper will find it hard to support these policies. But he will find it even harder to convince Canadians they are policies unworthy of support. Similarly, the NDP and Bloc would find it difficult to explain their decision to back Harper rather than Dion on these issues.

I like the strategy of that idea. The NDP and BQ would indeed find it difficult to support Decivin' Steven on such a vote, and would pay a political price if they did.

Now, there’s a lot to argue against pushing for a Fall election. Our poll numbers still aren’t swell, but we have the summer to turn that around and with the right issue to go into a vote on and the right campaign strategy those numbers can change quickly. There’s also the scheduled Ontario vote for the Fall too but c’est la vie, the Cons and NDP will be impacted there too.

The fact is, as I said earlier, wait into next spring and the picture only gets more uncertain and the challenge more difficult for the Liberals. It won’t be easy, a lot needs to go right, and there’s a lot of hard work to do, but I agree with Scott a fall election would be the best chance for the Liberals to wrest power from Decivin' Steven and return progressive government to Canada.

Elsewhere, Tribe thinks his fellow Scott makes a good case. Interestingly, over in Blogging Conny land, when they're not giggling about beer and pop corn and complimenting each other on their cleverness, they seem to think the idea is bad. Which leads me to think there may be something here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Globeandmail.com needs remedial headline writing class

Call this a pet peeve of mine, but the headline on this Globe web story was like nails on a chalkboard to me:

Cutting health tax will put province in debt, McGuinty says
KAREN HOWLETT
From Monday's Globe and Mail
June 3, 2007 at 9:56 PM EDT

RICHMOND HILL, ONT. — Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty signaled Sunday that he plans to fight a negative election campaign as he accused the Progressive Conservatives of being “reckless” for pledging to cut the controversial health tax imposed by the Liberals.

“We've seen that movie before,” Mr. McGuinty told reporters.

Umm, guys, we already are in debt. By a healthy amount I believe. What Dalton is talking about is deficit, which is not at all the same thing.

If your annual budget for the year is not balanced, ie. you’re spending more than you’re taking in, that’s a deficit. That’s Dalton’s concern, Ontario is now in surplus and he feels this move would lead to a deficit. Debt is the accumulated deficits from all the years you spent more than you have that you carry over, are paying interest and are making payments on.

So Ontario, while in surplus, is still carrying a lot of debt from all those years it was in deficit. We are already in debt. We’re not Alberta. McGuinty’s concern is falling back into deficit. It would be kind of nice if the Globe headline writers knew the difference.

They had another wonky headline for awhile on Friday that was later changed, along the lines of Giant Airbus 380 lands for the first time. Many puzzled Globe commenters, who knew the plane’s first flight had been months ago, wondered just how the thing had stayed up in the air so long…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Also not leaders: Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick

Me thinks it's time for Devin' Steven to fire-up the attack ad machine. It's not only Liberal senators that are raising issues with Harper's half-assed Senate "reform" plan. The governments of Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick are all warning the Cons their plan is unconstitutional, and can't be done without provincial consent:

Ontario and Quebec have joined New Brunswick in contending that the Harper government cannot unilaterally tinker with the make-up of the so-called chamber of sober second thought.(more)

Among the other provinces that have weighed-in, Saskatchewan opposes the incremental approach to Senate reform and opposes the Con bill but still thinks it’s legal, while B.C. doesn’t seem to care all that much either way and would rather it be abolished. B.C. should care, as I’ve argued before B.C. stands to be one of the biggest losers in a piecemeal approach to Senate reform.

Which is why I’ve always argued if you’re going to reform the senate go all-out with constitutional talks and tackle everything from seat distribution to electing Senators to the balance of powers between the chambers. If you’re not going to go all the way, then leave it alone.

Anyway, since Decivin’ Steven produced attack ads to highlight Dion’s concerns with his half-asses Senate tinkering, with the spreading opposition perhaps it’s time for some more attack ads from the Cons. Particularly given that his old buddy Charest is going way further than Dion:

And Quebec is going further: Premier Jean Charest wants the federal government to withdraw Bill C-43, aimed at creating a process for electing senators. He also wants the government to suspend work on bill S-4, which would impose an eight-year limit on senatorial terms, until it gets provincial consent.

I can picture it now…

(Omnious music)
Jean Charest thinks we should follow the constitution.
He thinks Senate reform should be done in a legal and effective way.
He wants a Senate that is not only elected, but equal and effective. He so crazy!
Jean Charest is sooo not a leader.

But really, with three provinces now in revolt wouldn’t it seem the logical, not to mention sensible, thing to do to simply put this on hold and refer the legislation to the Supreme Court for an opinion on its constitutionality?

Steve as well wonders just what the heck Decivin’ Steven is up to, while Ted gets all lawyerly to address some of the pitfalls of the Con legislation.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Reality check: Mike Duffy parrots Conservative talking points, forgets he's a "journalist"

I’m watching the supper-hour newscast here on the Toronto CTV affiliate, and every evening the anchor does a live chat with Mike Duffy from Ottawa for an update on the day’s events on Parliament Hill. Duffy just spewed a pile of crap so odious I had to hit rewind on the PVR to watch it again, then once more to transcribe the exchange.

The topic was the Decivin’ Steven’s rejection today of a call form the McGuinty Liberal government in Ontario for a ban on hand guns. Rather that present all sides of the issue, Duffy launched into a one-sided, unchallenged recitation of the Conservative talking points on the issue (probably straight from Sandra Buckler to his famed BlackBerry) and flat-out misrepresented, if not worse, the facts of the issue and the Liberal position. And running through it all was an strong sense of smugness and superiority from the Duffster.

First, here’s the complete exchange:

Anchor: Michael, I have to tell you, this seems like a no-brainer to many people in Toronto, especially in the wake of the Jordan Manners shooting. But the Federal Conservative government has rejected Ontario’s call for an all-out ban on handguns.

Duffy: And the reason is it’s chicken-soup legislation. I.E., it’s a law you can pass and it makes everyone feel good but, like chicken soup, it really doesn’t cure the cold. The federal government is saying they looked at this…Paul Martin tried this one during the last election campaign and it smacked of desperation. The Tories here tell me that Dalton McGuinty, with an election coming-up here October 10^th, is trying the same thing as a way to say don’t blame me, blame the federal government for gun violence in Toronto. What the federal Tories are saying is that a total ban would just be so huge, so difficult, it would take up so much resources trying to go after every gun collector and target shooter why don’t we just concentrate on gun violence among gangs, get the guns we an get now that are illegal out there. Let’s bring in mandatory prison terms for gun crimes. The Liberals are stalling and are opposed to it. The New Democrats and Conservatives voted in favour of it. So, at the end of the day, it’s time for a little (smugly fake-clears throat) reality check. Everybody hates guns. One politician saying blame the other doesn’t solve the problem. What solves the problem is more police putting more people in handcuffs and saying no to the hug-a-thug theory.

What a steaming pile of crap. You’d almost think Buckler had written the script for him, as a Blogging Tory couldn’t have done better. No ‘well this is one side and this is the other side’ but just a straight Con propaganda regurgitation.

First of all, Duffy claims this is “chicken soup legislation” which would seem to be his condescending way of saying a hand gun ban wouldn’t be effective. Stockwell Day made this same point today (same talking points no doubt) although he made it more eloquently than the Duffman:

Day argued that other countries where handguns have been banned have seen the numbers of gun crimes increase.

"In jurisdictions that have eliminated or tried to eliminate, to ban handguns - the United Kingdom, Ireland, other jurisdictions - in fact crime with guns has unfortunately gone up," Day said.

Unfortunately, Day was flat wrong. Rather than swallowing and regurgitating the Con talking-point like Duffy, the journalists at CP did some “journalism” as the kids like to call it and reported this (Scott's on this too):

Day's statements, however, don't appear to match with the facts.

There was a 16 per cent drop in the number of firearms offences in the United Kingdom in 2006 compared with the previous year, according to figures from Britain's Home Office. Injuries related to gun crimes also fell while fatalities rose slightly.

Police in London also reported an 11 per cent decrease in gun crime in the metropolitan London area during the same period.

Opps. You see, that’s the value of research Duffster. You must have some young interns on staff for that, right?

Then there’s Duffy’s ascertain that the Liberals are stalling on anti-crime legislation. Again, Duffy parrots an oft-repeated Con talking point unchallenged. Again, the talking point is full of crap. I don’t know if Duffy can remember as far back as, say, October, but if so he’d remember the Liberals offered to fast track more than half of the Conservative government’s crime fighting legislation. Yes, fast-track it. As in pass it quickly.

And how did Crime-fightin’ Decivin’ Steven respond to the offer? He said no thanks. As Globe columnist John Ibbitson explained, having the ‘soft on crime’ club to beat the Liberals with is more important to Harper than actually being, you know, tough on crime:

Then why do it? So Prime Minister Stephen Harper can turn the defeated bills into a wedge issue in the next election. "You see?" he will say. "This is the price we pay for a minority government. The Conservatives want criminals doing real time, rather than lounging around under house arrest. We want to keep dangerous offenders behind bars, and we want to protect people of faith from being compelled to act against their principles.

"But the opposition parties are more worried about the rights of criminals and pleadings of lawyers than they are about your protection. That is why we need a majority government."

The Liberals tried again in March, offering to pass four crime bills (C-18 (DNA Identification), C-22 (Age of Consent), C-23 (Criminal Procedure) and C-35 (Reverse Onus in Bail Hearings)) through the HoC in one day. The Con response? The used procedural measures to stall their own legislation! Yes Michael, the CONSERVATIVES stalled their own crime bills.

What’s more, to Duffy’s erroneous claim the Liberals are opposed to getting tough on gun crime and tough sentences, here’s what the Liberal platform has to say on the topic (I’m sure the OLO would be happy to hand-deliver him a copy) with some key parts bolded:

Tougher penalties – A Liberal government will re-introduce legislation to crack down on violent crimes and gang violence, and to double the mandatory minimum sentences for serious gun-related crimes. These reforms will also prevent courts from using conditional sentences in cases where there was serious personal injury, including all forms of sexual assault; terrorist activities; and organized crime-related offences.

Once again Michael, doing research beyond the Con talking points can be quite conducive to not only balanced reporting, but accurate reporting. Which is supposed to be the general idea.

And finally, what the hell was this “hug-a-thug” BS about Michael? How in the heck is banding handguns the equivalent to hugging criminals? I mean, seriously man?

I have to admit to not being a regular viewer of Mike Duffy Live. Is he always this full of crap, or did I just catch him on a bad day or something?

UPDATE: As Olaf mentions in the comments, Bob Tarantino has dug into the report cited in the CP piece on UK gun crime and found that while technically accurate, CP was selectivly misleading because overall, since the UK ban the stats have actually come up overall, although down in the period cited. So, bad CP, and bad me for taking CP at faith value. Let's hope the Brits have turned things around and numbers will continue their recent downward trend. Is the recent downward trend ban related? I dunno. Warren (the other Warren) has also examined the UK numbers and has some more nuanced thoughts.

My crow eaten and faith in CP shaken, back to selective and misleading stats. Some of the commenters over at Scott's find it quite selective that Stock specifically mentioned the UK and not, say Japan and Australia which they say also have bans and showed a drop. Are they right? I wouldn't put it past Stock but I don't know, and it's Friday night so I'm going to watch South Park instead of hitting Google.

Let me sign-off though by saying this, and I'm getting off my original theme of the Duffman here. But I'm sure no one is saying bans increase gun crime. You could read Stock that way, but I don't think that's what he was going for. I think the point he and most on his side would make would be that a ban would be ineffective. The veracity of that contention is unproven, barring a wider statistical sample of countries other than Stock's well-chosen UK example.

But even if a ban only leads to a minor decrease in gun crime, or serves to stem the rate of increase, isn't that a good thing. It's not an either/or situation as Duffy tries to make it out to be. We can both get tough on crime AND ban handguns. We can do both. Why not do everything we can to lower gun violence. Won't every bit help?

While Day and hand gun proponents, or ban opponents, whatever you want to call them, will argue a ban won't make a major difference, I don't think that's the real motivation for their opposition. For many of them, it's just that they like guns. They like the gun culture. They think owning a gun will make them more safe, they want it for protection.

And I don't buy that. I grew-up in the semi-rural West, and unlike many Liberals I'm willing to meet the right halfway on gun control. I understand the case for long-guns for hunting and pest control, the Liberal policy on the registry went too far in that regard. I worked on campaigns in B.C. where we made that point, and promised if elected to bring that view to the caucus table.

But you're not going to sell me on handguns. You don't shoot deer with a handgun. You shoot people with a handgun. So, not using any statistics, tell me again why we shouldn't ban handguns?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

RCMP asked to investigate yet more Conservative style “accountability”

We heard more from the Harper Conservatives today on their Do as I Say, Not as I Do ways, or Our Principles Apply to Everyone But Us, Volume 235…

As a refresher, this is what the last Conservative election platform (get the PDF here and count the broken promises) had to say about the topic of access to information, a key part of that whole accountability theme they used to be quite keen on, back when they were running for office:

Strengthen Access to Information legislation

The Liberal government has consistently rejected attempts to provide Canadians with better access to government information. The present Information Commissioner has gone to court several times to force the government to open its windows.

The plan

A Conservative government will:

• Implement the Information Commissioner’s recommendations for reform of the Access to Information Act.
• Give the Information Commissioner the power to order the release of information.
• Expand the coverage of the act to all Crown corporations, Officers of Parliament, foundations, and organizations that spend taxpayers’ money or perform public functions.
• Subject the exclusion of Cabinet confidences to review by the Information Commissioner.
• Oblige public officials to create the records necessary to document their actions and decisions.
• Provide a general public interest override for all exemptions, so that the public interest is put before the secrecy of the government.
• Ensure that all exemptions from the disclosure of government information are justified only on the basis of the harm or injury that would result from disclosure, not blanket exemption rules.
• Ensure that the disclosure requirements of the Access to Information Act cannot be circumvented by secrecy provisions in other federal acts, while respecting the confidentiality of national security and the privacy of personal information.

Sounds all well and good doesn’t it? But once again, as has so often been the case with the Harper Conservatives, there’s a big, big difference between the Harper rhetoric and the Harper action:

The RCMP have been asked to investigate whether the Department of Foreign Affairs broke the law when it denied the existence of documents related to the abuse of detainees in Afghanistan.

New Democrat MP Pat Martin wrote a letter to interim RCMP Commissioner Bev Busson yesterday pointing out that, under the federal Access to Information Act, it is an offence to suppress government records that should be released.

Opps, how’d that happen? Surely the Harper Conservatives would want to get to the bottom of this right? Wrong…

Conservative MPs, who are in a minority on the committee, initially tried to stall the investigation with filibusters but they have since abandoned that effort. So the politicians are now hearing from the bureaucrats involved.

Filibusters must equal accountability in Harper-land somehow. No wonder Ted calls him the Right Honourable Lyin’ Brian Harper this morning, while Scott weighs-in with some thoughts on Deceivin’ Stephen.

Competing nicknames, maybe we need a poll…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper on American Idol (video)

A little badly edited Friday video fun, what if Steve Harper fulfilled his dream and went on American Idol? The American Idol judges weren't too impressed with Harper's performance here, Simon in particular...

(background on the qp clip here)

UPDATE: Everything you'd ever want to know on Harper's idol ways, and Michelle weighs in.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers