Someone teach the National Post basic business journalism please

I’m a business journalist in my day job, and while today my reportage is more technology and marketing focused, back in the day I used to have to do a lot of spot reporting on company earnings. Wade through a mess of confusing numbers and acronyms – EBIDTA, GAAP, one-time charges, revenue, income, currency charges – and quickly discover the facts, what’s newsworthy and why, and report it.

And I tell you, if I got it as wrong as the Post did here, I’d be fearing for my job. Their analysis/link they try to make is completely off base and without merit, and is completely unsupported by the facts. With the Post’s death rumoured in recent days I’ve been defending them; not because they occasionally publish my commentaries but because I think we need more media organizations in this country, not less, because as a journalist I support jobs for journalists, and because off the op/ed pages, generally the Post is no more or less biased than any other outlet. But pieces that are completely full of crap like this one make it difficult to do so.

First of all, they rely on a Q2 2009 to Q3 2009 comparison as the main plank to support their thesis: dropping Liberal polling equals dropping Liberal donations. Ask any business journalist, financial analyst or accountant and they’ll tell you comparing consecutive quarters is largely meaningless. That’s because business is seasonal, it’s cyclical. So comparing, say, a department store’s Q4 vs Q1 next year revenue will likely show a big drop always. Why? Because Christmas is in Q4, and it’s a major shopping season. Sales always taper off in January.

That’s why comparing consecutive quarters is meaningless, and it’s why instead it’s standard practice to compare to the year-ago quarter. So, comparing Q4 this year versus Q4 last year and you’ll be comparing two like shopping seasons, giving you a better trend line to judge performance.

Second, if you want a true apples to apples comparison you need to look for and exclude one-time expenses or revenues. A company might take a big hit in one quarter because of a fine, for example. Or realize a big one-time gain because of an asset sale. Comparing numbers without factoring-out one-time numbers gives you a meaningless conclusion.

Anyway, here’s the Q2 to Q3 numbers as Tweeted by Canwest’s David Akin:

Q309/Q209 #cdnpoli Contribution $ only: #BQ -50% #CPC -5% #GPC +14% #LPC -50% #NDP +57%

As I said, comparing consecutive quarters is largely invalid, and there’s one major factor the Post missed in drawing the conclusion they did from these stats (I don’t quarrel with Akin here, he’s just reporting the numbers): the Liberals had a huge one-time revenue boost in the previous quarter: the Vancouver convention. Over 2000 people at up to $1000 bucks a pop. That skews those numbers.

Of course, they dropped from that quarter’s result, and it had little to nothing to do with polling: it had everything to do with not having a major national convention every quarter. To not factor that in is misleading, dishonest and just plain crappy reporting.

That aside, let’s look at the Post’s wider conclusion: that Liberal polling decline = Liberal donation drop. That’s only supportable if you ignore the methodology flaws already noted and look at just the LPC numbers in isolation. But their theory doesn’t hold with the other numbers. The Cons shot-up in the polls, but their contribution numbers dropped 5%. The NDP tread water in the polls at best, and they went up 57% in contributions. Their thesis just doesn’t make sense, even if you ignore the other obvious flaws in their supporting data.

Now, all that said, what happens when you do the comparison that is generally accepted practice in business, and compare to the year-ago quarter? Here is Akin’s tweet for that number:

Q309/Q308 #cdnpoli Contribution $ only: BQ -92% CPC -41% GPC -67% LPC +5% NDP -41%

Well, that’s a very different number isn’t it? Remember, we were fighting an election in this quarter a year ago, usually good for a nice fundraising boost. So it’s unsurprising the Conservatives and NDP are both off by 41%, year over year. Again, one-time rev boost in the year-ago quarter.

Nonetheless, that rev boost this time was available to all the parties, not just one (unlike the LPC convention) and yet only one party is not down sharply year over year. Indeed, only one party is actually up year-over-year for Q3, despite not having an election boost this year: and it’s the Liberal Party, up 5%.

So that just takes the Post’s theory and proves it to be completely full of crap. The LPC has fundraising momentum. There's a long ways to go to match the Conservatives in sheer volume, but the trends remain positive.

Now, could poor polling make it difficult to raise money? Absolutely. It will definitely make it harder, and things need to turn around on the polling front. But as much as the Post may wish to twist the laws of accounting, basic business sense and, well, reality to make it so, there’s nothing in the donation figures to show that has happened yet.

P.S. Visit Pundit Guide for a more non-partisan take.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

What the AG is looking at: E-health and more

Auditor General Sheila Fraser is bringing down her next report next week (November 3rd) and a list of the topics she'll be reporting on has been released:

Fall 2009 Auditor General’s Report

Chapter 1, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Programs
Chapter 2, Selecting Foreign Workers Under the Immigration Program
Chapter 3, Income Tax Legislation
Chapter 4, Electronic Health Records
Chapter 5, Acquiring Military Vehicles for Use in Afghanistan
Chapter 6, Land Management and Environmental Protection on Reserves
Chapter 7, Emergency Management—Public Safety Canada
Chapter 8, Strengthening Aid Effectiveness—Canadian International Development Agency

A few interesting ones on there, particularly electronic health records. After all the drama that has been playing out on that front in Ontario, that one will be closely watched I think.

There's more of a preview at the AG's Web site:

Chapter 4—Electronic Health Records—The audit examined how Canada Health Infoway manages funds from the federal government to achieve its goals of making compatible electronic health records available across Canada. In addition, it looked at the role of Health Canada, the sponsoring department, in ensuring that Canada Health Infoway complies with the agreements under which it receives funding from the Department.

The environment commissioner will also be reporting at the same time:

Fall 2009 Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development’s Report
Chapter 1, Applying the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
Chapter 2, Risks of Toxic Substances
Chapter 3, National Pollutant Release Inventory
Chapter 4, Environmental Petitions

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Reluctantly siding with the cable companies

Ask Canadians to pick between broadcast conglomerates and cable companies and they're likely to throw up a little in their mouths and pick none of the above. Both sides are fighting for our affections at the moment, using money they don't have, to convince us of the righteousness of their sides. Ironically, we're funding both sides of this battle for our love.

Here's the latest salvo from the broadcasters, via CTV:

A majority of Canadians believe local television stations should receive a portion of what consumers pay monthly to their cable companies, according to a new poll.

Seventy-two per cent of those who took part in a Nanos Research study agreed, when asked whether "the government should force the cable companies and broadcasters to negotiate payment for local TV signals."

Fifty-seven per cent agreed when asked whether they believe local TV stations will close, "if cable companies don't pay for the local TV signals."

Due respect to Nik Nanos, but I'm skeptical. But then again, the broadcasters certainly have the resources to shape public opinion, don't they?

Anyway, I guess I'm in the minority according to those numbers but I'm siding with the cable companies on this one.

The business model is fairly simple: broadcasters purchase and produce content, and sell advertising to pay for it. Cable companies build a delivery infrastructure, broadcast the content and deliver the content to subscribers.

The two groups need each other, and the cable companies aren't leeching off the broadcasters as the broadcasters contend. If it wasn't for the cable companies, no one would be getting the content the broadcasters produce. No audience means no advertisers, meaning no revenue and therefore no business. The cable companies provide the delivery infrastructure to provide an audience for the broadcaster's content, and that requires significant investment.

So the broadcasters provide cable companies with content, and the cable companies provide the broadcasters with an audience. They need each other.

Now, it's easy to argue that, on one level, its unfair for the cable companies to get the broadcasters' content for free, and they should pay a fee. Sure, why not. One could also argue then that cable companies should charge a fee for carrying the broadcaster's content over their delivery infrastructure. Or how about higher fees for better placement on the dial?

Where will it end? Because, at the end of the day, the money all comes from the same place: Canadian television viewers.

And this is nothing to do with local TV, that's a complete red-herring. For broadcasters like CTV, local content is a mandated minimum by the CRTC that they grudgingly supply as cheaply as possible. None of this money they want will go toward local TV. It's just a convinient rallying cry.

This is about the changing business models that are impacting broadcasters just the same as it's impacting print media. It's about fragmented audiences in a 1000 channel universe sharing a shrinking advertising pie, and its about legacy broadcasters that haven't adjusted their business models from the days when TVs actually had dials.

Squeezing more money out of Canadians is not the answer. Re-thinking your business model is. Ironically, more local content may indeed be the answer. But pay for it not by tax increases, but by not spending gazillions on imported American programming. Get lean, get mean, know your audience and focus. That's the future.

There may not be room for legacy broadcast networks in the new television universe. They'll adapt and survive or they'll die, and the world will keep on turning.

In the mean time, I'm reluctantly siding with the cable companies on this one. Hands off my wallet

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: The real person project

Michael Ignatieff: Kids like him, he can make fun of himself, and he won't subject us to his singing. Throw in some policy and we have a start.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Job one: Lower expectations

As I read through my news clips this morning it occurs to me that I don't think the messiah got the kind of hype and press that Peter Donolo is getting. It's really getting comical. Luckily, I've discovered an interesting list of Peter Donolo facts and he certainly seems up to the challenge:

* Some people wear Superman pajamas. Superman wears Peter Donolo pajamas.
* Peter Donolo can set ants on fire with a magnifying glass. At night.
* Peter Donolo can slam a revolving door.
* Peter Donolo doesn't wear a watch, HE decides what time it is.
* Peter Donolo’ hand is the only hand that can beat a Royal Flush.
* Peter Donolo is the reason why Waldo is hiding.
* Peter Donolo counted to infinity - twice.

Oh, wait, that was actually Chuck Norris.

Settle people. Our problems are big, our challenges significant and our road head long. And it will take all of us to get there.

Those who search for messiahs usually end up dead on the floor from the spiked koolade.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Finding cause for optimism where we can

I wrote in the National Post's Full Comment Blog today about my thoughts on Peter Donolo's hiring and Ian Davey's departure as Michael Ignatieff's chief of staff. An excerpt:

I do know that Donolo has a good deal of political staffer experience and Davey decidedly did not. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on the day of the week. When things aren't going well and you have an inexperienced crew, the problem is your lack of experience. When things aren't going well and you have an experienced crew, the problem is you don't have enough new blood. So Davey's outsider credentials (traits also ascribable to much of the OLO team) were considered an asset and a bold and innovative choice ... until it wasn't, just like Donolo's experience will be now viewed as an asset and the obviously needed antidote to our Liberal flu ... until it isn't anymore.

Since I seem to have sadly neglected to include an obligatory West Wing reference, let me say this: you can search high and low for your Leo McGarry but, at the end of the day, it's up to Bartlett to be Bartlett. So while this was probably a good and necessary move, Ian Davey certainly wasn't the problem and Peter Donolo isn't necessarily the solution. So let's not get overly worked up here. It's the leader who will determine where this ship sails.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Small world

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Closing the stimulus door after the narrative got out

Many, many weeks (months, really) after the Liberal opposition began hammering on the partisan distribution by the Conservatives of stimulus funding, and many weeks after several media organizations did their own studies which largely supported the Liberal contention, we've finally started to see some organized response from the government.

The response comes in a CP story today, which reports Transport minister John Baird's office has done its own study that shows, surprise surprise, nothing to see here. In fact, apparently the big-heated Conservatives are over-favouring opposition ridings. Because they're just that generous.

CanWest's David Akin also crunched some of the numbers for a fund that is intended for educational institutions and found that it favoured opposition ridings. David is a straight-shooting journalist but I have a methodology quibble here: major universities tend to be in major cities where tend to be represented by opposition ridings, so the result would only make sense and doesn't render mute the point made by the other studies at all. Indeed, what would be more valid would be to look at the total number of ridings with major universities, and then see if Conservative university ridings were over-favoured on a percentage basis.

Certainly, there's lots of playing to be done with these numbers. As Baird's spokesperson said they have different funds for different purposes. His office's study was of a fund aimed at major cities, and since urban ridings skew opposition of course those numbers skew toward opposition ridings. Just as Akin's study of the education fund did.

But unless the Liberal and other media studies were of funds designed primarily for rural ridings (and they weren't) then their analysis stands, and Baird's cherry-picked study is just designed to distract from the already cemented narrative. And as Steve pointed out, their counter-argument falls apart there as well, as within rural ridings, the data shows Conservative ridings being favoured.

One of the major problems noted even in Akin's reporting is the difficulty, or imposibility, or getting full and complete numbers on government stimulus spending. The government can complain that these studies are incomplete, but their unwillingness to provide complete information makes a full accounting impossible and supports the thesis there is untoward activity because it makes it seem like they have something to hide.

Really, though, my point is this: the government is many days late and many dollars short on their response here. The narrative here has been set, and the logo cheque scandal cemented it: the Conservatives are playing partisan games with stimulus and are favouring their own ridings. And all Baird's studies and all Baird's spokespeople won't change that narrative at this point.

Who knows what the final numbers will show. When the auditor general gets involved in a few years it could turn out to be not that big a gap. As I recall, the "billion-dollar HRDC boondoggle" turned out to be a few thousand dollars in actuality. Didn't matter, the canard is still trotted-out to this day.

Whether the stimulus scandal will impact voting intention is another matter entirely, but Baird's spin notwithstanding, the public view here is set.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

No TV is fine, but what’s the price of milk?

It was amusing last week to watch the broadcast media jump all over Stephen Harper’s admission that he doesn’t watch Canadian news. They’ll gloss over stories such as mixed-messages on our post Afghanistan military presence or the government’s penchant for secrecy, but suggest that the PM doesn’t idolize Peter Mansbridge and Lloyd Robertson and they’re on it like a dog with a bone.

The fact is, and I rarely say this, but I’m actually with Harper on this one. I don’t watch Canadian news that much either. Rarely will I tune in to CBC’s The National, and I’ve never really watched CTV’s flagship broadcast. Every once and awhile I’ll flip on the local supper-hour news on CFTO, but usually it’s as background white noise as I do something else. And I’ve long since, with rare exception, foresworn the assorted political nerdfest shows (although for curiosity’s sake I’ll need to check out Evan Solomon’s new one). Party hacks shouting talking points (we’ll leave the irony unsaid) just doesn’t do it for me, being neither entertaining nor particularly informative.

That’s not to say I’m not informed on what’s going on in the land. I get a daily clippings package of stories of national and political interest, which I cull even further before reading. And with the Web, with Twitter and Facebook, I’m pointed to the stories that are of interest to me, saving me from having to sift through the stories I don’t want.

This is actually the news dissemination model of the future, and it’s a model mainstream media has had difficulty adjusting to: hyper-personal. People are still consuming news. But they’re consuming it differently, and through different sources. They’re getting it through aggregates and readers that just give them the news they’re interested in. The mainstream media is still the source, and that won’t change, but the way we access it has. Gone is the one-size fits all, here’s everything model. Media companies need to figure-out how to market that hyper-personal market to advertisers. The potential is there, and it is attractive for advertisers to be able to target specific groups, ie. political nerds, or Nascar fans. They just need to adjust their sales strategies.

Back to me and Harper, however. There is one rather serious drawback to this new model of news consumption that we’re engaging in (I’m assuming he is still getting Canadian news through some source or another, fingers crossed). By only getting the news we’re specifically interested in we’re missing out on quite a lot that, were we exposed to it, we would be interested in. We risk creation a generation of less informed, broadly-interested people.

Pick up the newspaper and skim the headlines and, while you won’t read it all, you’re bound to find a few stories that you wouldn’t have normally read but that you find enlightening and fascinating, exposing you to ideas and viewpoints you wouldn’t have otherwise considered. Flying back from New York last week, having already watched the three episodes of How I Met Your Mother on Air Canada’s video on demand system, I watched a compilation of documentary reports from CBC’s The National. One was a day in the life of the Chief of Defence Staff, the other a piece on diamond mining in Zimbabwe. Both were very interesting, and both wouldn’t have hit my radar normally.

So, there are drawbacks to the fact Harper and I don’t watch much Canadian news. And while for me its an interesting philosophical conundrum, I’m a bit more concerned about what it means for the Prime Minister of Canada. For someone who has made so much about the fact Michael Ignatieff spent much of his professional career overseas, I wonder what his viewing habits say about Harper’s connection to what’s happening out there in Canada. For a PM particularly, your exposure to everyday life is minimal. The PMO is another bubble within the Ottawa bubble. You need to make a conscious effort to peer outside it.

So while the Canadian news is tedious, maybe giving a little time to Mansbridge every now and again would be a good idea for both of us. Perhaps the broadcast media could meet us half-way, and try to focus less on superficiality and pap. And no, making Peter deliver the news standing doesn’t help.

On a side note, it was disturbing that Harper said he watches American news instead. That seems to indicate his issue isn’t necessarily with broadcast news, but with the news of Canada. Hardly an encouraging attitude for a Prime Minister and it doesn’t speak well to his perspective and view of the country.

However, it may explain his unending focus on crime policy. If I watched no news but that out of Buffalo, I’d be scared for my life as well.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Back to blogging and catching up

I know I’ve been a bad blogger lately, but with a busy stretch at work, including trips to Nashville and New York City, it’s been hard to find the time to blog. And besides, I find a blogging sabbatical every now and again can be useful to recharge the batteries, not to mention step back from the partisan strife and gain a little perspective.

I’m back to it today though, so I thought I’d share some thoughts on some of the news and events that occurred during my absence.

Welcome to the Cheque Republic: Some have complained the Liberals have been going too big on the Conservative logos and MP signatures on cheques/partisan stimulus (and now expensive Go-Train ads) story. If they have gone overly big I don’t blame them one bit. They needed to do something to change the media narrative from Liberal suckiness and this is the kind of stuff the media love, so mission accomplished.

Is there an impact however beyond changing the channel? Remains to be seen. Certainty the cheques, and the analysis of stimulus spending favouring Conservative ridings spearheaded by Gerard Kennedy and now taken up by several media organizations, feeds a negative narrative of the Conservatives. Of course, the counter is, all politicians feather their own nests. True enough. The Liberals didn’t put party logos on cheques, but that’s a distinction most Canadians are unlikely to make.

This could be another in the “death of a thousand cuts” that eventually cause governments to fall, the jury is out. It certainly does take away the Conservative moral high-ground: they campaigned on being above all this. And it could be that what would be dismissed as the usual partisan pork-barreling will be viewed more negatively coming during an economic downturn, when the government had a responsibility to help all regions of the country that are suffering. We’ll see. These things can take a while to sink it, and this thing does stink.

As I said though, if nothing else it changed the channel for awhile, and that’s a good thing.

Liberals talk policy: I’ve been lamenting the Liberal Party’s unwillingness to talk policy outside of an election campaign, so I was pleased to see a change in strategy on that front with Michael Ignatieff talking Liberal policy on the environment, on early learning and childcare, and on womens issues.

I’m sure there weren’t as many details as some would like, but it was a good pre-election step at outlining what the priorities of a Liberal government would be, including a commitment to clean energy, renewable power and cap and trade. I was pleased to see a commitment to national childcare re-affirmed as well. And for the cynics out there, I’ll note the Liberals had a system all put in place and negotiated with most of the provinces before the Conservatives and the NDP (and the BQ) allied to defeat Paul Martin’s government. Finally, the “Pink Book” on women’s issues not only speaks to a key Liberal constituency, it also puts forward meaningful and real ideas, such as micro-credit facilities for female entrepreneurs.

It’s a very good start on the policy front. Now the challenge is to get creative about getting the word out about the policy proposals, and start a debate on our issues.

Non-confidence if necessary, not necessarily non-confidence: Apparently Michael Ignatieff said last week the Liberals won’t move non-confidence at every opportunity, and will take each vote on a case-by-case basis. The media said this was a back-down from the Liberal hard-line taken post-Sudbury. Certainty came across that way. The Liberal Party insisted this was the position they’ve taken all along, so no change. If that’s the case, the nuance of that message had certainly escaped me. And I’d have to attribute that more to their failure to communicate the message clearly than to my ability to comprehend it.

Nevertheless, it’s the right course. Clearly, the election brinkmanship and being seen as itching to go to the polls without having established a compelling narrative and case was hurting us. Taking a breath, starting to work on developing that case (and talking policy), indicating a willingness to work on some issues while still maintaining your lack of confidence is a sensible course.

The polls turned bad quickly, they can turn around just as quickly as well. It will take hard work, discipline and sound strategy, but it’s more than doable. As always, the devil is in the execution.

King me: This whole public spat between the Governor General and the Prime Minister over titles and constitutional prerogatives is childish on both their parts. Harper didn’t need to call Jean out in public. Jean didn’t need to stir the pot further. They were like two squabbling children.

What bothered me more though was when I’d read comments about Canada “clinging to its British colonial roots” and other such nonsense. Look, I think it is time to have a debate in Canada about our constitutional monarchy, and about having an elected Canadian head of state. I don’t want Charles on our money.

But that said, I get annoyed when I see people talking down or saying we should dismiss or downplay our British roots. This is our history. We should embrace it, not hide from it. Yes, Canada has welcomed people from all over the world and we’re a country that allows them to keep and even celebrates their unique heritages, and that diversity and celebration contributes to the Canadian identity. But our British roots are strong and undeniable, and celebrating our diversity doesn’t mean forgetting where we came from.

So I say Rule Britannia, God Save the Queen, and The Maple Leaf Forever (original lyrics, please and thanks)!

Silence, shmilence: The NDP seem to be in a tizzy because the Liberals won’t rubber-stamp some environmental private member’s bill of theirs before the Copenhagen conference on climate change. And some of the NDP blog types seem to think there’s some kind of Liberal blog conspiracy not to talk about it, which is totally more plausible than just maybe we have other things to talk of more import than empty NDP posturing. Let me break the supposed silence though to say poppycock.

I don’t think taking the time to give due consideration to the bill, to hear testimony, and to get information on costing is all that crazy. Actually, it I think that kind of thing is parliament’s job. How do I know that? The NDP told me once.

Rushing the bill through before Copenhagen isn’t enough reason to sacrifice due consideration. Whenever the bill is passed the Conservatives will ignore it, the world won’t notice or care, and it will have no impact on the government’s climate change policy whatsoever.

What this NDP posturing is really all about is politics, and re-establishing the environmental credibility that was left in tatters when they allied with the Conservatives to demonize the Liberal green shift, a real and meaningful climate change policy supported in principle by much of the mainstream environmental community, for no other reason than partisan politics.

So no, I don’t see any particular reason to rush through their bill just so they can try to be credible on climate change again. Let parliament do its job.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Some pictures from Nashville

I'm down in Nashville covering a conference for work so don't expect much in the way of blogging over the next few days. Seems like a decent time for a Liberal to get out of the country anyways...

But in lieu of political spin, here's a few pictures of my pre-conference day yesterday in Nashville, where I did the tourist thing. On the agenda was a city tour, the Country Music Hall of Fame (I'm not a fan but, when in Nashville...) and a Predators/Oilers game.

It was so tacky I just had to buy it.

The Sommett Center, home of the Predators. Was surprised to learn its pronounced Sew-May.

I have a dream. That one day a black man and a while man will come together to open a bail bond business, and that they will exploit my moving words about racial struggle for commercial gain. I have a dream!

No sir, I apologize but you cannot bring your handgun into this bar because we have posted a prohibition in plain sight. Don't blame me, blame the Northern liberal Yankees.

My lunch: Chicken-fried chicken. Needed a third chicken element, but still very delish.

Home field of the NFL's Tennessee Titans.

The Tennessee State Capitol. Rather than design it with the usual dome, the architect built a tower that looks like a lantern that lights-up at night.

A to-scale replica Parthenon. In Nashville. They built it for their centennial or something. Because...I don't know.

Historic recording studio on music row where Elvis Presley and many other famous Nashville stars recorded.

Some country guy's customized car from the 50s or something. Apparently guns were the bling of the period, and the rims of today.

Elvis Presley's gold piano.

The corn field from Hee-Haw.

Hank Williams' Monday Night Football jacket and guitar.

An impressive selection of condiments at the Predators game. Yes, in addition to the usual suspects you see ranch sauce and mayo. I just put ketchup on my burger, but it felt good to have options.

Pre-game skate.

There were a few fights. And these American hockey fans all loved it. At least those in the half-empty arena.

Game action.

Live music during the intermissions was fun.

The Oilers celebrate one of their many goals on the night.

The Oilers celebrate their 6-1 victory over the Nashville Predators. Fun game.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Friday Fun: Obama's peace prize means bad winter ahead

Stock-up on anti-freeze and road salt, and ensue you have lots of wood for your wood stove. Barrack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize win today means it will be a long, cold winter:

AccuWeather.com meteorologists have discovered an interesting weather correlation in light of the recent announcement by the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

The committee announced Friday that President Barack Obama is the 2009 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, making him the the third sitting president and fourth overall to win the award.

Interestingly enough, severe winter weather followed each of the previous three presidents' awards, which raises questions if this year will follow the same pattern.

Theodore Roosevelt won the award in 1906 during his tenure as president. The winter of 1906-07 saw a severe February 4-6 nor'easter that produced up to 10 inches of snow from Washington to Boston, according to Paul Kocin and Louis Uccellini, authors of "Northeast Snowstorms."

Woodrow Wilson won the award in 1919 while in office, and following winter saw several severe storms. A late January storm dumped ice, sleet and snow across the Northeast.

This storm was immediately followed with a slow-moving February 4-7 storm that left heavy amounts of snowfall from Maine to northern Virginia. According to Kocin and Uccellini, this February storm brought what at the time was considered "some of the harshest winter conditions ever experienced."

More recently, Jimmy Carter received the award in 2002. The North American blizzard of 2003, which lasted from Feb. 14-19, dumped between 15-30 inches of snow in the major Northeast cities. Boston had a total of 27.6 inches, 23.6 inches on February 17 alone.

AccuWeather.com will release the winter forecast on Wednesday, but preliminary reports predict a cold and snowy winter for the Northeast.

Be sure to check the AccuWeather.com winter forecast this Wednesday to see if the 2009-10 winter will follow this "presidential" trend.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Are the Conservatives push-polling?

Are the Conservatives doing some push-polling? In the Ottawa area it appears they might be, as someone claiming to conducting a poll on behalf of Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre, was asking poll questions far more designed to influence public opinion than to measure it.

Unfortunately, one of the calls went to a CBC producer:

So, there's this phone, see? And this phone just so happened to belong to a CBC producer in Ottawa. And last night, just as it was born to do, it RANG!

On the other end was an actual non-recorded human voice -- male -- conducting a poll on behalf of her local Conservative MP, Pierre Poilievre.

Curious, she participated in the poll, which was clearly trying to gauge her interest in an election now and who she'd support -- while ever-so-subtly reminding her about the home renovation tax credit and federal infrastructure money to build the Strandherd Bridge in her riding, brought to her by the Harper government.

The pollster was very quick and unscientific didn't ask her name, age or occupation, she said.

Said CBC producer also found the language used by the pollster interesting. He didn't use the word "Liberal," but used Michael Ignatieff's name. But when the pollster referred to the other parties, he did so by party name.

He also asked if she'd support the "Ignatieff-NDP-Bloc coalition" and was unresponsive when she asked him about the current Conservative-NDP interlude/bromance/whatchamacallit in the House of Commons.

"Really no sense of humour with these guys," our producer said.

One wonders if the Conservatives are using their substantial campaign war chest to make misleading push-polling calls across the country. Has anyone else received similar calls?

Push-polling. Once-again, the Conservatives importing the finest Republican tactics. Then again, it could have been worse...

Bush's campaign strategists, including Karl Rove, devised a push poll against John McCain. South Carolina voters were asked "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?". They had no interest in the actual percentages in the poll, the goal was to suggest that [McCain had a black child]. This was particularly vicious since McCain was campaining with his adopted [dark skinned] Bangladeshi daughter

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

YOU're lecturing, Stephen Harper? Really?

Isn't it ballsy for Stephen Harper and company to be lecturing the Governor-General on constitutional protocol, when last December he and his cohorts launched a coordinated misinformation campaign designed to cast as an illegal coup d'état what was actually a proposal perfectly in line with the convention and rules of our parliamentary democracy?

I might take his insistence for clarity on constitutional roles and responsibilities more seriously if he didn't continually undermine and dismiss the role of the judicial branch, for example.

Or the role of the Senate.

Or if he maybe recognized the distinction between the executive and the legislative.

And the role of parliament, particularly in minorities.

And if he didn't play-up, revel in, and even actively encourage the public's ignorance of the workings of our political system so he could exploit it for political advantage.

So yeah Steve, you're right, the GG isn't our head of state. Indeedly-do.

But you've already made all our social studies teachers cry anyways.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

With no plan, it's better the devil you know

We’ll be reading much about polls, and how they’re not good for the Liberals. And they’re not.

And we’ll be reading much about how opposition leaders always have tough starts (they do), how things can quickly turn around (they can) and how campaigns matter (they do).

While obviously I pay attention to polls, I tell myself not to worry when they’re bad and not to get too confident when they’re good. Polls can concern me, and they do, and I believe they can be overcome, so I don’t worry in that sense.

But I would be a lot more confident if I sensed we had a plan, a strategy, a way to get us to where we need to go. Yes, polls are a snapshot. Yes, opposition leaders have rough starts. Yes, campaigns do matter. Yes, these things can, are and will be turned around. But not without a plan.

What concerns me is not so much the polling numbers as the fact I can’t discern at the moment what our winning strategy is to achieve that turnaround I believe to absolutely be possible.

And we do need a plan, because what we’re doing right now clearly isn’t working.

I don’t need polls to tell me that either. If I, as a Liberal, am unclear on just what the party currently stands for, if I’m unclear on just what our plan is, on what we want to do in government, on what our vision for the country is, then how can we expect Canadians to support us?

When I talk to members of the non-political Canadian majority, they don't follow the scandals that we politicos get all excited about. They don't care about who props-up who, or confidence motions, or the like. They're not Harper fans but they think he's done an adequate job. And they don't know Ignatieff, what he's for, or what the Liberals are all about. Harper's the devil they know.

Our strategy seems to be say nothing, commit to nothing, just attack Harper and wait for him to fall on his face. That pre-supposes, of course, that he will. Even if he does, if you don’t give Canadians a compelling alternative, if you don’t give them a distinct choice, nine times out of 10 they’ll stick with the devil they know.

I don’t know what we stand for. Apparently we’re against having “adult conversations” with Canadians, walking back the mere suggestion pretty dammed quickly. It would be a risky strategy, perhaps, but timidity isn’t going to get us anywhere. No risk, no reward.

No, instead we present a muddled negative vision that you don’t need to be an adult to see through. I used to mock the Conservatives for Harper’s declaration he’ll balance the budget without program spending cuts, tax increases or, now, transfer payments. It’s a non-sensical position that defies the laws of economics. You can’t grow your way out of a structural deficit of this size.

So imagine my annoyance when the Liberals echoed that same promise. We’d better have a good plan to back that up, I thought. I’m led to believe we do, but it’s a secret. Wait for the campaign. So, instead, we’re still bizarrely going around attacking the Conservative position while echoing its gravity-defying promise AND offering no alternative plan.

Never mind adults, junior high kids can see through that. If we’re not going to offer something different, mindless attacks are just that: mindless. It only draws attention to the absence of our own plan.

I’ve written before of my advice for Michael Ignatieff, as did Dan Arnold. George Young adds more good thoughts today.

Bottom line for me though:

* The Liberal Party needs to stand for something, besides wanting to be back in government.
* Fortune favours the daring, and punishes the timid. So find the balls to take some calculated risks.
* Treat Canadians like adults, maybe they’ll return the favour.
* Liberals need to see there’s a plan, that we’re all on this ship rowing somewhere together, and not just in circles.

Right now, I get the sense that we’re just drifting aimlessly, turning our sail to the scandal du jour, waiting for the Harper implosion that may never come.

That’s a course that is as likely to crash our ship on the rocks as anything else.

Will we recognize this and change course, or not?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Crime and the Senate

Reading news coverage this morning leaves me pondering just what role many media and politicians expect the Senate to play in our democracy and whether, all things considered, blowing the thing up may just make more sense.

I’ve read many headlines this morning alleging that Liberal senators are “gutting” the latest Conservative pander/get tough on crime legislation: the bill dealing with ending the 2-for-1 credit for pre-sentencing confinement.

In short (or not), every day served in jail before someone is actually convicted counts as two days off the sentence they’re given, the thinking being they hadn’t been found guilty of anything yet, and it’s the poor that are more likely to be confined pre-conviction because they can’t afford to make bail.

The Conservatives proposed legislation to end the 2-for-1 credit, and make one day count as, well, one day. They say defense attorneys are abusing the system by dragging-out cases to maximize the pre-conviction credit, and, rawrr, the time sentenced should be the time done. It received all-party support and then went to the Senate, where the drama began.

The Senate heard from expert witnesses who said the bill was unconstitutional. The Senate decided to amend the bill to 1.5 days credit for pre-sentencing time, with judicial discretion for 2 days. The bill is expected to the House, where the Senate changes can be over-ruled and the legislation reverted to its original form.

This has triggered much predictable braying from the Conservatives, with the NDP jumping-in with their Conservative friends for good measure. Unelected Senators shouldn’t change House legislation, they complain. The Liberal Senators are soft on crime, they bellow. Oh, and Michael Ignatieff is a weak leader because Liberal Senators don’t do exactly what he says.

I don’t want to debate the merits of the legislation at the moment. Rather, I want to look at what this episode says about the role we expect the Senate to play in our democratic system. Because, like it or not, what the Senate did here is exactly what it is supposed to do: it examined the legislation, heard from learned witnesses, considered their concerns, and made amendments.

The House has the right to over-rule them, and it probably will but the Senate didn’t overstep its bounds at all. It did its job: sober second thought.

Then there’s the attacks on Ignatieff’s leadership here: are we really saying that the party leader should insist on rigid discipline and party-line votes from its Senators on every piece of legislation? That doesn’t make sense, it’s not how the system has worked or is meant to work.

And if the Senate is to be a party-line institution, a do whatever the House says institution that can’t amend legislation, why the heck would we keep it around anyway?

Only the NDP supports abolition, Harper supposedly want to reform the Senate. One wonders, to what end, though? If it was elected Liberal senators amending his legislation, would he find that more legitimate? I find that unlikely. Is he going to expect every elected Conservative Senator to toe his party line, or might they have other ideas about the role of an elected, equal and effective Senate?

And, while I do favour Senate reform and while I don’t want to sidetrack into a debate on the merits of this particular crime legislation, let me just say that this could well be a case-study for why the Senate is here.

You have a house of elected MPs who are so dammed scared of the “soft on crime” label that they often let their better judgment be swayed by political considerations. As a check and balance we have a Senate, the chamber of sober second thought that, not having to fight for election seemingly every year, is free to listen to experts, consider legislation on its merits, and made decisions based on facts, not political positioning.

Unelected as they may be, that freedom at times seems like a pretty good thing. Would six-year terms for Senators help achieve that for elected Senators? Perhaps. But that freedom is certainly something worth preserving somehow, in my view.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why are we so dammed afraid to get smart on crime?

As a Liberal who would describe himself as socially moderate and fiscally conservative, I'm increasingly angry and frustrated with the inability and unwillingness of the centre/left to get smart on crime policy. Increasingly, we’re letting the conservatives define the terms of the debate as we cower in the corner frightened and whimpering, afraid of being tarred with that label of political death: soft on crime.

I remember being dumbfounded during the 2005/06 election campaign, when the Paul Martin Liberals included support for mandatory minimum sentences for some (gun-related) crimes in the election platform, a move to echo ineffective Conservative policy proposals that was also adapted by the NDP.

Mandatory minimums don’t work, the evidence on that point from the U.S. is pretty overwhelming. Criminals know what they’re doing is wrong and they know there are consequences, mandatory minimums aren’t a deterrent. They do nothing to prevent crime, they only increase prison populations. They're about appearing tough on crime without doing the heavy-lifting to actually prevent crime.

Yet mandatory minimums were back this spring, with the Conservatives proposing them for a range of drug-related crimes including, in some cases, simple possession. And while the NDP stayed offside this time (they were voting against everything at that point) the Liberals, rather than having the courage to call bullshit, rather than having the willingness and the gumption to argue (with the facts on our side, by the way) that this is an expensive and ineffective excuse for crime fighting legislation that will do nothing to address crime, instead took one look at the polls and the election possibility and, afraid of the “soft on crime” canard, supported the legislation.

And now, as I wrote yesterday, we see a trial balloon from Conservative justice minister Rob Nicholson about making a mockery of civil rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to “randomly” force people to submit to breathalyzer testing.

I was astounded, and I wasn’t, to see NDP leader Jack Layton immediately jump on board with this big-brotherish Conservative proposal, in a seeming abandonment of the core principles I’d have ascribed to the NDP:

The New Democrats would support efforts to craft a new law to curb impaired driving by giving police the power to conduct random breathalyzer tests, says Jack Layton.

"It’s the kind of thing that could save some lives," the NDP leader said Monday outside the House of Commons.

I guess civil liberties don’t mean much to Layton when it comes to appearing to be tough on crime to troll for votes. Sadly, my Liberals may be following down that same road. Don Martin, in a column where he argues in support of this thing, indicates the Liberals are supportive of the proposal although he doesn’t quote sources.

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh is quoted by the CBC as raising many of the same concerns I raised yesterday but, to my dismay, he doesn’t dismiss the proposal outright:

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh, the former attorney general of British Columbia and a member of the House justice committee, said the question of whether any legislation would be allowable under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would come down to implementation.

"It remains to be seen what the actual legislation is when the minister brings it forward because we want to make sure that it's appropriately constrained and it's not too much of an infringement on civil liberties," Dosanjh told CBC News.

Dosanjh said the charter does allow for constraints on rights when they are deemed reasonable, but said he would need to see how those constraints are implemented before judging any future legislation.

"For instance... I wouldn’t want the east side of Vancouver monitored more than the west side of Vancouver because there is a clear economic division in the city," he said.

"We want to make sure that areas are not unnecessarily excessively focused on and that's why I think that we need to make sure that the legislation is properly drafted with appropriate constraints and guidelines for the police," he said.

I can’t believe my party is even considering this legislation which, to me, is diametrically opposed to what the Liberal Party of Canada, the party of the charter, has always stood for. And I’m surprised that I’m finding more alliance with conservatives, particularly I’m guessing libertarian Conservatives, in my opposition to this thing. Even the National Post’s editorial board thinks this is a bad idea. And while they occasionally publish my musings on the Web, the Post’s editors and I rarely, if ever, agree on policy.

So I ask again, why are we so dammed afraid of the crime issue? Why do we let the Conservatives falsely define the terms of debate?

We have the facts on our side, but we’re unwilling to even make the argument. Why aren’t we saying the Conservatives are soft on crime? Why aren’t we saying their crime policy is nothing but politically-motivated posturing designed to stoke public fears to win votes but that will do absolutely nothing to prevent crime?

Why aren't we pointing-out that, under the previous Liberal governments, most crime rates actually declined steadily, proof that the approach of balancing enforcement and detention with prevention and addressing root causes, being smart on crime, actually works?

Why aren’t we saying the Conservative crime-policy is half-assed? Why aren’t we saying that by ignoring crime prevention, by strangling crime reduction measures that are proven to work such as Insite, by doing nothing to address poverty and root causes, by focusing on detention and sentencing to the exclusion of all other areas of criminal justice, the Conservative crime policy is fatally flawed? That the Conservatives are ignoring measures that could actually reduce crime?

No, we’re not doing that. We’re too afraid we’ll lose and be labeled soft on crime. It’s pathetic.

I will grant that it would be a tough debate to win. It’s far easier to appeal to people’s demons than their better angels, its easier to stoke their fears than encourage their compassion, to sink to the lowest common denominator rather than raise the debate.

It would be difficult to do, but it would be the right thing to do. We have the facts on our side, we have truth on our side.

We might well lose the debate. But it’s not the debates that we lose that bother me. It's the debates we can’t be bothered to suit up for.

If we’re going to fall, we should fall standing-up for something.

Right now, we’re falling standing for nothing.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Random breath tests: A frightening trial-baloon from Rob Nicholson

I'm loathe to fall into tired rhetoric and hyperbole by throwing around terms like police state and big brother run amok, but this trial balloon from Conservative justice minister Rob Nicholson is frightening, with a myriad of troubling consequences:

The federal Justice Department is considering a new law to randomly force drivers to take roadside breath tests, regardless of whether police suspect they have been drinking, Canwest News Service has learned.

Random breath testing, if adopted, would replace Canada's 40-year-old legislation on impaired driving, which dictates that police can only administer breathalyzer tests if they have a reasonable suspicion of drunk driving.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson publicly raised the prospect of random testing recently at the annual gathering of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

"He has his Justice officials putting together the legal parameters," said MADD chief executive officer Andrew Murie.

Nicholson, when asked whether he is considering a new law on random testing, said: "We are looking at all options in that regard."

This is a bad idea on almost uncountable levels.

Firstly, I'm curious to see how they'd get around charter provisions against unreasonable search and seizure. The police can't just stop you and compel you to submit to search. They need to have reasonable grounds for suspicion, they need probable cause. That's a fundamental tenet of a free society, and is a key part of personal liberty. It's what separates us from police states.

Secondly, is it really going to be "random" searches? I don't buy that one for a second. I'd bet good money that certain demographics would get "randomly" pulled over for testing a lot more than other demographics. And it probably wouldn't be the same demographic responsible for the bulk of drunk driving offenses.

Thirdly, I'm a decided legal layman, but this would seem to open up a huge can of legal worms. You randomly pull someone over for a random breathalyzer test, someone that under normal circumstances you have no legal probable cause for doing so. And in that process, while they blow clean you discover they have committed another offense: let's say, the possession of a small amount of marijuana.

Normally, that would be inadmissible because you had no probable cause for the search. But does the "random breathalyzer" law get your foot in the door and make an otherwise inadmissible search become admissible? Would the breathalyzer law be used as an end-run around the wider search laws to widen police powers in ways not intended by the law, and that are contrary to the charter?

For many reasons, I think this is a horrible idea. Look, I support strong sentances for drunk drivers. And if the government has sensible ideas, if they have effective proposals for police tools that will actually work, I'm willing to listen. But a shredding of the charter of rights and a curtailing of civil liberties that would have repercussions far beyond those intended is not the answer here.

Of course, such legislation would never pass without a Conservative majority. Which makes this just yet another example of the Harper Conservatives substituting politicking and appealing to fear for actual effective anti-crime legislation.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Demers abstains on first Senate vote

CP has an interesting story en francais on former Montreal Canadiens coach Jacques Demers' first vote in the chamber of sober second thought since his appointment earlier thus year by Stephen Harper as a Conservative Senator.

The vote was to send to committee a bill by Liberal senator Jean LaPointe that seeks bill that amend the Criminal Code to restrict video lottery terminals to designated gaming facilities (casino, race tracks) and remove them from other licensed establishments (bar, restaurants) as a step toward countering compulsive gambling.

In a Quebec television interview, Demers indicated he was concered about the problem of compulsive gambling and seemed generally supportive of LaPointe's bill. However, it seems the Conservative Party is opposed to the bill and, before the vote, a Conservative colleague took him aside to explain how things work in the Harper caucus (via Google Translate:)

If voted in favor of the bill, he would vote against his party for his first vote as a senator, which would send a strange signal to his fellow conservatives. If he voted against the bill, some would call him in the nose statements to Radio-Canada.

"Senator Nolin explained exactly why we voted, I explained the situation, and I realized," Jacques Demers recounted in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"Had it not been for the intervention of Senator Nolin, I would have picked up myself. People have said:" But he said it on television ", he agreed.

Not clear in these circumstances to find a balance between his personal beliefs and position of a party.

"I want to be a team player, for sure, for the Conservatives," assured Mr. Demers, who does not pass for "a rebel".

"I want to be fair, but I want to be honest with myself [...]. I do not want to be just a guy who is there to vote, I want to know why I vote. I do not want to be stubborn, I use my trial, "he argued.

Certainly I give credit to Demers for abstaining on a vote where he disagreed on the party line rather than voting with the party line against his beliefs and opinion. What I find passing odd, though, and particularly as I remember the mantra about free-votes and empowering members that was the hallmark of the Reform Party of which Stephen Harper was an architect, is that the Conservatives would insist Demers either toe the party-line or abstain on a realitevly minor matter such as banning VLTs from bars.

Do they whip every vote, no matter how mundane? Confidence matters I can understand, Money bills, certaintly. But this seems a little extreme, and makes for a rocky introduction for Demers to the Conservative Senate caucus.

And moreover, why doesn't the Conservative Party support getting VLTs out of bars? Booze and addctive gambling hardly seem like a winning combination, and bars don't have the resources to monitor and moderate their use that casinos do.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Friday Funny: Jack borrows Steve's Timmies play

Not only is the NDP voting/abstaining with the Stephen Harper Conservatives, Jack Layton is now taking a page from their press conference playbook with this Thunder Bay event tomorrow:

THUNDER BAY, Ont. _ Federal NDP leader Jack Layton holds news conference on HST. (4 p.m. at Tim Hortons, 110 Waterloo St at Victoria Ave.)

Like Blue Conservative father, like Orange Conservative son? Next think you know, Stephen Harper will grow a very classy and modern mustache. Or maybe it could be, as was suggested on Twitter, payback for that fetching orange tie that Harper wore during question period a few weeks ago.

Clearly, though, Michael Ignatieff is falling behind quickly in this war of coffee house pandering. I think the pointy-shoe, loud-colour-wearing kids in the OLO will be up late tonight plotting a strategic response.

Do they quickly send Michael to the nearest Timmies, even if it's one of those express ones inside an Esso? Or, maybe, rather than fighting on the now crowded Timmies battlefield, do they try to seize Coffee Time or Second Cup in a pincher movement?

It's tempting, but surely they'll remember their Von Clausewitz.

In Canada, Tim Hortons in the schwerpunkt!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Jason Kenney: The election speculation ate my homework

Expect this to become a common, oft-repeated refrain from the Harper Conservatives, however longer the NDP decides to keep their government alive: we'd do great things, but the election speculation ate our homework:

Important reforms to Canada's immigration system ranging from changes to refugee asylum to better regulation of immigration consultants are on hold because of the threat of an election, says Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.

Kenney made the comment to reporters as he announced the government will fast track immigration and visa applications for citizens of the Philippines impacted by this week's typhoon.

"I have been working on a number of important files, including better regulation of immigration consultants, improvements to the nanny program, the live-in caretaker program and ... reform of the asylum system," he said. "All of those things have been put on hold, indefinite hold, because of the constant election threats."

Umm, why Jason? The Conservatives have been governing with a minority for nearly four years now. Minorities mean the constant threat of elections. But that doesn't mean you stop governing, and it doesn't mean you can't get things done. And it hasn't stopped the Harper Conservatives from doing plenty of other things.

So it's pretty silly for Kenney to be blaming election speculation for putting any plans for immigration reform on hold. It tends to give more credence to my earlier speculation about his desire to "manufacture a crisis" in the immigration system. If he trying to worsen the situation to build a case for unpopular reforms?

No doubt this will be fed into their next "parliament isn't working so we need a majority to do stuff" narrative, notwithstanding the fact that on this issue they haven't really tried to do it yet anyways.

Fact is, I agree reforms are needed, although I'm sure Jason and I will disagree on the details. But rather than blaming election speculation, rather than playing political games, Kenney should just put his proposals on the table and have a debate with parliament and with Canadians on the best-way forward.

A real debate on important issues? Probably too much to hope for.

P.S. Still waiting for Kenney's thoughts on his colleagues bashing the idea of pension support for senior citizen immigrants.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Ignatieff's no-confidence speech

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff's speech to the House of Commons Thursday, introducing the Liberal motion of non-confidence in Stephen Harper's Conservative government.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Jack Layton on abstentions

Today, while the Liberals and the BQ voted non-confidence in the Conservative government of Stephen Harper, the NDP abstained. They stayed in their seats while Canada watched, ensuring we will continue to be governed by Stephen Harper.

The NDP thought long and hard about their strategy (get the flu, vote with the Cons, abstain) and kept it a secret until the last minute, when they revealed their grand plan: abstaining.

Toronto Jack is about to tell the media why abstaining was a strong statement about making parliament work/saving his ass, and I'm sure he'll be very eloquent.

Maybe he'll be as eloquent as he was in October of 2007, when the Liberals abstained on Harper's Throne Speech:

NDP Leader Jack Layton accused the Liberals of being an "absent Opposition" and handing the Tories the gift of being able to operate as if they had a majority government.

"Nothing makes people more cynical about politics than when parties don't do what they say, don't stand up for what they believe," Layton said outside the House.

UPDATE: Much more from the Cowboy.

FURTHER UPDATE: This is funny in hindsight (h/t to buckdog). Chickens roosting, indeed.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservative Olympic majority master-plan revealed

When people would say that Stephen Harper’s master plan was to hold onto power through the 2010 Olympic Games in Vancouver, and then ride the post-Olympic euphoria to electoral fame and majority glory, I’d always scoff. What does the Olympics have to do with confidence in the federal government, I’d ask? How, pray tell, would, say, gold in Men’s Hockey translate into gold for a guy who has just been talking about writing a book on hockey?

Well, I’ve been proven wrong, with the unveiling today of the new logos and clothing for Canada’s 2010 Olympic team. Now, the strategy of the Harper master plan is all too clear.

For fun, take a look at the following four items of clothing. Can you guess which are official Team Canada Olympic gear on-sale at The Bay, and which are official Conservative Party gear on-sale at their C-Store?
UPDATE:

A Liberal MP is alleging that "crass politics" have resulted in a Canadian Olympic retail logo that mirrors the federal Conservative party logo.

Vancouver Liberal Hedy Fry told the House of Commons that a new logo for February's Winter Games "bears a striking resemblance" to that of the governing party.

Gary Lunn, the minister for amateur sport, responded that the federal government was "not involved in any way, shape or form in the design of any of the Olympic clothing."

(More)

FURTHER UPDATE:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Thomas Mulcair: Looking out for number one

Future NDP leadership candidate (assuming Martin Cauchon doesn't defeat him in the next election) Thomas Mulcair asked the following question of the government he's propping-up in question period on Monday, regarding the HST:

Thomas Mulcair (NDP): (Voice of Translator): Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives are busying themselves harmonizing sax tax increases in Ontario and British Columbia, Quebec is still waiting. Still waiting for the compensation it's owed after having harmonizeed its tax in THE '90s. 6 billion here. Instead of his usual boasting, can the minister of national revenue for once in his life answer the following question: When will Quebec finally be compensated?

Here Mulcair, as the NDP often does, is jumping on a BQ talking-point to try to curry favour in Quebec. If Ontario and BC are getting money to harmonize sales taxes now, why not Quebec, he asks, which harmonized some years ago.

Even if you accepted retroactive compensation as valid and not a cash-grab, why is Mulcair, whose party staunchly opposes the HST, not arguing for retroactive compensation for the other provinces that have previously harmonized?

Why isn't Mulcair demanding compensation for New Brunswick or Newfoundland? And why isn't he demanding compensation for Nova Scotia, home of NDP Premier Darrel Dexter?

No, it seems Mulcair is only concerned about Quebec, and not the Atlantic HST provinces. And I'm sure it has nothing to do with his Quebec seat being in trouble, and his not so secret dreams of replacing Jack Layton being on the rocks...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

And suddenly Jason Kenney goes quiet

The Conservatives are jumping all over a little private members bill introduced recently by Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla. It's similar to a bill quietly introduced by former Liberal MP in the last parliament, that won support from the BQ and NDP before dying on the order paper when the Harper Conservatives forced the last election. It's a bill that deals with pension benefits for immigrant seniors:

The minority Conservative government is in full opposition mode over a Liberal MP's private member's bill that would allow immigrant seniors to qualify for Old Age Security after spending only three years in the country.

Of course, as is their practice, the Conservatives are actively spreading fear and misinformation about the proposal. Diane Finley (she who spread propaganda that inflated the cost of the Liberal EI reform proposal by several billion dollars) is up top her own tricks again, telling people the proposal would confer full benefits on immigrant seniors after three years, when that's just not true:

Under her proposal, Dhalla said, immigrant seniors who have lived in the country for three years would qualify only for partial OAS benefits of $38.77 a month — nowhere near the maximum payment of $516.96 a month collected by native or foreign-born residents who have lived here for 40 years.

So, Conservatives spread misinformation and distort the truth, nothing new there.

But what is interesting is that, as the Conservatives "quietly rub their hands in glee", as Finley hits the media to distort the facts once again, and as the Conservatives paint images of entitled immigrants feeding at the public through as red meat for their base, we're not hearing a word from Jason Kenney.

Yes, Jason Kenney, the Conservative immigration minister, he who has made it his mission (and a fairly successful one, at that) to make Conservative inroads with immigrant communities. Kenney, who was never misses a cultural or immigrant-related event.

Where is Jason Kenney on this issue, as Finley goes to town on the truth and his Conservative colleauges stoke-up the anger over the notion of givign immigrant seniors even minimal pension benefits? Why isn't Kenney joining in the Conservative chorus denouncing Dhalla's proposal?

One wonders what Jason's new friends have to say about his old friends.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers