Night One: #cpc11 live blog

6:30 pm: I have my blogger/media pass, I've navigated my way through the brand new Ottawa convention centre, I've paid $33.90 for WiFi (you're welcome, dear readers) and I'm settled into the front row of the media section (at the waaaay back of the convention hall) for night one of Conservative Majoritypalooza 2011.

I'll be liveblogging the evening's festivities right here in this post, so keep refreshing for regular commentary, sarcastic and otherwise.

6:35 pm: The cover band in the hall is trying to get Conservative delegates out of the wine and cheese mixer and into the hall. They just played No Satisfaction; can't help but feel it was dedicated to the Liberal blogger at the pack of the hall...

Did I say cash bar? I didn't. But it is. $8 for wine, $7.25 for hard stuff, beer from $3.75 to $7.25 if you want the elitist imported stuff or a microbrew. There is, however, lots of free cheese and some very tasty kettle chips. I've become a big kettle chip fan over the last few months. It's really the only way to do chips, in my view.

6:40 pm: So what's on the program tonight? Apparently Stockwell Day will give the big speech tonight. I saw his wife Valerie earlier on her way into the hall. Senators anthem singer (and OPP constable, IIRC) Lyndon Slewidge will sing O'Canada. I hear Canucks anthem virtuosso Mark Donnley did the same deed for a Conservative campaign rally (news that really choked-up this Canucks fan, I tell you). The CPC seems to have a lock on our hockey anthem singers, although maybe the NDP has the Canadiens guy. Anyway, Senators Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Jacques Demers, and MP Steve Blaney, will MC.

6:51 pm: The shindig was supposed to start 21 minutes ago, but people are still filing in. The PA is getting increasingly pissed off as he implores everyone to take a dammed seat, already. Actually he still sounds nauseatingly perky, but that just means he could break into profanity-laced rage at any moment. I'll keep you posted.

Meanwhile, in the halls the topics of debate seem to be one member one vote and the youth wing. James Moore, for one, didn't want to be seen within a country mile of a position on omov. Every system has its merits, he said. Debate is good. Now how can the Canucks manage to solve Tim Thomas?

OK, looks like we're starting.

6:56 PM: Lyndon Slewidge with a stirring rendition of O'Canada. I'm shocked not one member of media row (besides me) stood for O'Canada. You don't need to be neutral on that mes amis; it's the national anthem...

Meanwhile, apparently John "Canada's face to the world" Baird is the convention host. He's on stage now, and I think he gets $10 every time he says "strong, stable Conservative majority government." Someone owes him $50.

7:01 PM: It's the first political event in the new Ottawa Convention Centre (which is really very nice, but not as nice as Vancouver's -- the reclaimed pine beetle wood makes the difference) which Baird notes was made possible by a contribution from Canada's Economic Action Plan. Because if it was a gazebo is Muskoka, it would be funded from the border security fund.

7:06 PM: Baird is turning the stage over to Wallin and Blaney. Wallin jokes letting foreign affairs minister Baird out on the word stage without adult supervision could be dangerous. At least, I think she was joking. No, I'm sure she was joking. Fairly sure.

Wallin reminds crowd she covered Ottawa as a journalist (ed. opinion elite). Send money, they're infiltrating the caucus! No one boos, anyway, and then they cheer when she says they're going to finally kill the gun registry. They're going to really reform the Senate too, she says. Well, not really because they won't open the constitution to give the West proper representation, but they're going to pretend to be reforming it at least.

7:11 pm: Blaney says unlike some new Quebec MPs, he can find his riding on a map, and Wallinm adds he has a driver's license and is drinking age too. This is conservative humour typified: ill-intentioned cracks at others.

Demers and Duffy will be "floor reporters." Duffy is now introducing Ajax-Pickering MP Chris Alexander, who defeated Liberal Mark Holland. After a few classy(less) shots at Holland, he makes a crack about "liberating Holland" again which, surely, can't be comparing the Liberals to the Nazis,c an it? Oh, wait, it was Mike Duffy, sure it could be.

7:18 PM: Demers is interviewing someone from Quebec who spends two minutes ripping on Jack Layton and the NDP. There's your new era of decorum, Jack.

7:20 PM: The Conservative Party president is speaking now; John Walsh. I hadn't heard his name before today. Apparently he doesn't regularly go on TV and say baffling things, keeps a low profile, and competently does his work behind the scenes. My, that's quite the concept...

7:26 PM: Hey, it's that campaign ad the CPC ripped off the Tim Pawlenty campaign. Actually, as a student of political communications I really like this ad. It's a nice piece of film-making.

Anyway, if you're drinking at home do a shot every time a speaker says "strong, stable..."

Walsh is now introducing Jason Kenney, minister for curry in a hurry.

7:29 PM: Kenney says the likes the sound of foreign affairs minister John Baird. Because he totally didn't want that job...

Kenney is taking us on a trip down revisionist history lane, when Liberals raised taxes (untrue, we cut taxes across the board) and slashing military spending (Reform wanted bigger DND cuts) and insulting our allies (like the UAE?).

7:34 PM: Kenney is saying "they" dont' think the CPC's majority victory is real, that it was a fluke. Who are they? The strawman in Jason's head. He looks like the scare crow from the Wizard of Oz. Anyway, he's going on and on attacking the Liberals saying they barely won seats thanks to vote splitting, and citing stat after stat on historical vote counts and margins. Because nothing stirs a crowd like random statistics!

7:37 PM: Now Kenney is ripping on the CBC. Now where's James Moore again... Big cheer for talking about the return of Tory Toronto. And a shot at the Toronto Star, the only endorsing major media organization that didn't endorse his party.

7:42 PM: Now he's moving from the Liberals to the NDP, whose orange crush was apparently no match for the blue wave. Apparently "downtown" Jack Layton doesn't share your values like "uptown" Stephen Harper does. Leaside is totally rural, you know.

7:47 PM: Kenney says every CPC MP won their nomination on their merits, no appointments. *cough* Rob Anders *cough*. He goes on that they're going to govern for a long time beause "conservative values are Canadian values." You may recall they used to rip on the Liberals saying "Liberal values are Canadian values" but that's totally different, you elitist loser.

You know, it's amazing how quickly these folks have come to think what is now will be forever, and will never change. They are so quickly becoming that which they have always (and still) despised.

7:54 PM: Stock Day gets a welcoming video montage. Keeping my fingers crossed or jet ski or Niagara Falls footage...

7:55 PM: No such luck. Anyway, Stock thought he'd just be here to do damage control after Kenney's speech, didn't realize it would be a tribute. Anyway, after thanking some folks Stock says now that he doesn't have to worry about a cabinet appointment, he has a few words for "Steve." But then his wife comes out on stage with a stop sign that says "we love Harper", in a Senate page reference.

8:02 PM: Stock tells whiny Liberal MPs those offices don't belong to them. Cheap shot, Barney, but whatevs. Now he's saying he's glad it's the media, and not his party, taking shots at young now NDP MPs. The crowd applauds. The same crowd that applauded Wallin and Blaney for taking shots at young NDP MPs. And I'm sure none of the delegates will see the contradiction, but I found it hard not to heckle (I'm trying to bring some decorum to media row).

8:10 PM: Anyway, a few silly partisan remarks aside, Stock's speech is fairly good. A call to his colleagues for decorum, for values, for respect, and to work to build the nation in their vision. The freedom of a former politician...

Stock is warning that the NDP takes one example of legitimate suffering and wrongly condemn the system. A tactic the Conservatives would totally never employ.

Now he's talking about global financial markets; I drifted off and thought Paul Martin was on the stage.

8:16 PM: Days talking about the G8/G20. He says we totally mispent all that money and misled Parliament, we were wrong and we're sorry.....no, just kissing. He's trumpeting a pledge to reduce debt and help women in developing countries that don't want abortions.

Now he's talking to the media and says with freedom comes responsibility; he wants them to improve their decorum too. And taking a page from his caucus, the media heckles him (not really). Now in urging the media not to attack politicians, he's attacking the media for personal attacks and attacking people's personal difficulties. Because those bastards should really be nicer.

8:21 PM: OK, Stock has gone off the rails. No personal attacks, so the Taliban-coddling Liberals should start supporting the troops for a change. Mmmm kay. And we'll just ignore the tens of millions his party spent demonizing Michael Ignatieff and Stephane Dion. Seriously Stock, get your head out of your ass. I agree with your call for more civility, but you don't usher in a new era of civility by calling everyone you disagree with assholes and pretending your record is as clean as virgin snow. You've jumped the shark, dude.

8:27 PM: Now he's talking about Chinese innovations in steel production. No, really.

8:35 PM: OK, he's done. Peter MacKay is up now with a wooden box to thank Day. "Strong, stable, national..." drink!. He thinks Harper got the Jets back in Winnipeg, and is the latest speaker to doom the Canucks cup chances.

8:42 PM: MacKay is talking about how we're fighting so the people of Afghanistan can have costly, unnecessary elections that prevent Hamid Karzai from doing the important work of governing Afghanistan, because a sea of troubles laps at its shores.

In the wooden box is a Canadian flag that flew over the memorial at Kandahar air field by our task force commander in Afgianistan; tat's cool.

8:46 PM: Retired and defeated Conservative MPs coming to the stage to be recognized.

8:52 PM: And that's it. Delegates are off to drink in hospitality suites paid for by corporations like Visa Canada. And I may just do so too. Will try to post some video later. But for now, good night, and good luck.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Buy your own iPad, Stockwell

Conservatives are telling Canadians we need to tighten our belts. Sure, there are billions for Cadillac stealth fighters, and billions more to give tax breaks to the big banks. But help families care for sick loved ones, put their children through college or university, or find affordable child care? Can’t afford it, the Conservatives insist. It’s time for austerity. Suck it up.

It seems though that for these Conservatives, austerity doesn’t begin at home. YOU need to tighten your belt. But Stockwell Day wants you to pay for his iPad.

The government allows cabinet ministers and senior staff to expense iPads. However, last November, Parliament’s Board of Internal Economy, chaired by Speaker Peter Milliken, decided that iPads should not be allowed as expenses covered by a members’ office budget.

Mr. Day indicated this week he disagrees.

If there’s any doubt that a Conservative culture of entitlement has taken hold, this should dispel it. Canadians need to tighten our belts and do without, but we should drop over $800 so Stock can play Angry Birds during question period.

Here’s an idea, Stockwell: buy your own iPad.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stock and I make census of crime reporting

Stockwell Day says we can't rely on statistics showing a declining crime rate because those figures only measure reported crime. And Stock apparently has unreported figures that show unreported crime is rising (or maybe not):

Treasury Board President Stockwell Day says statistics showing crime in Canada is declining may not be accurate.

Day says the crime rate per 1,000 people has dropped, but adds that more people are not reporting crimes.

He says surveys suggest many people don't bother calling the police on some crimes.
The numbers are alarming, he says, although he did not elaborate.

Day says this is why the government plans to hike spending for new prisons.

What Stock failed to mention is that the reason we can't necessarily take those crime statistics at face value is because crime reporting is voluntary, which leads to an array of challenges that can skew the numbers. With the reporting pool self-selecting, some groups may be more likely to report criminal events: the middle-class, for example, or the the family of a murder victim. And those who live in high-crime neighbourhoods, or who are the victim of a minor crime such as j-walking, might not bother to report.

That's why tomorrow I'm told Stock will announce the Conservative Party's new "Get Tough on Unreported Crime" initiative, which will make crime reporting mandatory and threaten stiff fines and/or jail terms for failure to report crime.*

That's why they're really building all those prisons.

*No, not really.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Final thoughts on the shuffle

With my post yesterday on Rona Ambrose’s prorogation mountain climbing I did touch somewhat on this week’s shuffle of Stephen Harper’s cabinet, but I did want to comment a bit more broadly on the topic before moving on.

I don’t think it was really much of a shuffle of note. Most of the major jobs stayed the same. Sure, Lisa Raitt was down (but not out, what do you need to do to get booted by Harper?) and Rona Ambrose was up. Whatev.

Much attention seems to be focusing around Stockwell Day’s move to Treasury Board, which is being taken as a sign that the government is about to get serious about cutting spending. I need to take a contrarian view on that one for three reasons.

First, this government was the highest spending government in Canadian history BEFORE the downturn and stimulus, so if they did suddenly decide to be fiscally prudent it would be quite a turnaround for them.

Second, even if they did want to go on spending cut bonanza, what is it about Stock Day that makes him the ideal poster child for probity? I don’t recall his term as Alberta Treasurer being marked by spending restraint. All I do recall is the government having to pay for him to defend against lawsuits and pay for settlements.

Third, there seems to be some fundamental confusion about the role of the president of the Treasury Board. To quote the Winnipeg Sun:

The president of the Treasury Board’s job is to monitor that spending after a fiscal blueprint has been approved by Parliament. If the budget itself — expected in March — does not contain the kind of frugality required to start reversing this orgy of government spending we’ve seen in recent years, Harper could appoint Ebenezer Scrooge to head the Treasury Board and it wouldn’t amount to a hill of beans.

If the government wanted to launch a rationalization and efficiency kick, asking departments to give back existing budget, then TB head would be the guy to lead it. I recall Reg Alcock leading a program review under Paul Martin. I wouldn’t count on big savings though. Every government comes into power promising to cut waste, and always finds there’s far less waste then they thought. Or are willing to cut.

No, if you want to cut spending it’s not done by Treasury Board. It’s done by Finance during the budget process. And last I checked, that department is still headed by the highest spending finance minister in Canadian history, the same guy who left Ontarioins with a massive hidden deficit. With Jim Flaherty still in his job, I’ll believe this new probity when I see it.

No cabinet personalities

The overarching thought I had when considering this shuffle is how bland and interchangeable most of the Harper ministers are. And it really speaks to the differences in governing philosophy and the role of government between Liberals and Conservatives.

It seemed to me that the Liberals always many activist ministers, who pushed and fought for programs and initiatives that they believed in and were important to them. John Manley and later Brian Tobin on wireless broadband. Lloyd Axworthy on land mines. David Anderson on a range of environmental files. And many others. They had things they wanted to get done, and they lobbied hard to do so. They had personalities.

In contrast, the Conservative ministers seem more simple managers. They get their marching orders from the PMO and they work quietly and diligently on the file, managing the day to day. But I get no sense of a vision, of any minister being truly engaged in their portfolios, bringing drive and a personal interest to move files forward. Perhaps the one exception is Jason Kenney who, while I often disagree with him on policy, is very much personally engaged in his portfolio and seems to have a vision driving him. The rest of them, I sense you could have everyone trade with the minister to their left at the cabinet table and it wouldn’t change a thing.

Of course, both Conservatives and Liberals would say that their approach is the right one. And it wouldn’t (just) be partisanship. Liberals believe in activist government as a force for good in society, Conservatives want government to manage its narrow responsibilities well and otherwise stay out of the way.

It’s an interesting contrast, though. In the end, there’s only one minister that matters, and that’s the one in the Langevin Block. The other pieces are entirely interchangeable.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Day vs. Flaherty: Who ya gonna believe on the economy?

Now is the time when we compare and contrast at Small De..., er BCer in Toronto:

Jim Flaherty:

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says it might be premature to declare an end to Canada's recession.

The minister made the remarks Tuesday on his way into a Conservative caucus meeting.

"No, I think we will have to look back as we always do, and look at this quarter," Flaherty said when asked whether he agreed with the Bank of Canada's most recent assessment of the economy.

Stockwell Day:

I'm not kidding. The recession is over. Now I realize some of you may be saying, "hey, who gave Stockwell Day the right to say the recession is over?'

Strictly speaking, nobody gave me the right to say a recession had started, let alone declare it was finished. There is actually a technical definition which says if a certain number of measurable economic indicators are not met over a certain period of time, then, presto!, we're in a recession.

However, if those same economic goal posts are reached over a certain period of time then somebody can declare just as categorically that the recession has ended. In Canada's case that 'somebody' happens to be the Governor of the Bank of Canada.

Now, I know Flaherty is the finance minister and everything, whereas Day is good with a jet ski. Still, I feel like Stock has just a little more credibility on economic matters than Jimbo these days.

So I don't know who to believe...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephen Harper and cosmopolitans

What is it with the Conservative Party of Canada and ignorance of the English language? I mean, say what you will about Brian Mulroney, but the man swallowed the frickin' Blarney Stone. He could string some words together.

But these guys? Boy, I don't know. Stockwell Day had no idea "spearchucker" meant something other than "person who throws spears" and, of course, Pierre Poilievre claims ignorance of the meanings of the phrase "Tar baby."

And now we get this from The Globe's Lysiane Gagnon (h/t to Susan Delacourt):

At worst, there is the suspicion that a cosmopolitan such as Mr. Ignatieff is not a loyal Canadian.

(In both French and English, the word “cosmopolitan” has some pejorative connotations, depending on the context. In France, the word cosmopolite is used by anti-Semites as a code word for Jew.)

I'm actually going to have to claim ignorance on this one too, as this connotation is news to me. But then, so is using the word cosmopolitan in a negative sense, as the Conservatives are doing.

And so did Joe Stalin, by the way:

After World War II, Stalin's anti-Semitism was revealed in a series of public attacks against Jews in the Soviet Union. Jews were labeled "cosmopolitans without a homeland," code for not being patriotic enough. By 1949, these attacks led to the abolition of the JAC, and the dismissals and arrests of thousands of Jews.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Don't tase the lobbyists bro

Remember that whole ending the lobbying revolving door thing? Well, more developments from the it's a small world after all front, with the CBC's Political Bytes blog pointing-out highly-placed Conservative Ken Boessenkool has registered to lobby the government behalf of Taser International, supplier of the stun guns used by the RCMP and other forces.

Ken Boessenkool worked as a senior adviser to Stockwell Day when he was treasurer of Alberta. Day, of course, is now the minister of public safety, responsible for the RCMP.

In his lobbyist registration, Boessenkool lists among his duties promoting an awareness campaign to educate decision-makers on the facts of Taser International's products.

Among the government institutions to be contacted? The department of public safety, headed by his former boss.

At least Ken shouldn't have much trouble getting Stock on the phone to talk tasers.

Ken's Conservative connections don't stop with Stock, however. As Politics Watch pointed out, Ken was a senior policy advisor to then opposition leader Stephen Harper from 2002 to 2005. After that he went into lobbying with Hill and Knowlton, where his clients interestingly included the Canadian Association of Income Trusts. (Hmm, maybe his influence isn't too great after all.)

Boessenkool was also a key player in the last Conservative war room. And he co-authored the infamous Alberta firewall letter with Harper, Tom Flanagan, Ted Morton and others, and is a long-time Harper confidant.

Anyway, just glad to see that Conservative anti-lobbyist rhetoric isn't stopping well-placed Conservatives from trading on their connections to lobby on behalf of their clients. Everyone knows the Conservatives only had a problem with Liberal lobbyists, after all.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Another reason for Harper's proroguing Parliament?

In the midst of a blog posting on whether or not Parliament has actually been prorogued yet or not (it has to do with when the PM actually makes the official request to the GG, whose approval is generally a given), Macleans.ca’s Kady O’Malley makes an interesting and as yet otherwise overlooked observation about another potential motivation: killing potentially embarrassing committee hearings.

… the House Public Accounts Committee…is supposed to hold two days of hearings on the RCMP pension scandal later this week.

If Parliament is prorogued, those meetings are cancelled, since at that point, the committee no longer officially exists. But if it doesn't happen until next week, when the PM is back in town, it's full speed ahead for all concerned...

Makes the timing of the proroguing rather interesting, doesn’t it? If Parliament has indeed been officially prorogued, which as Kady writes is a bit unclear at the moment, then these pesky hearings that the Cons would rather not have happening would magically disappear since this committee, like all others, will go poof.

No unsavory headlines generated. Among those scheduled to testify this week are/were Stockwell Day and new RCMP Commissioner William Elliot. Harper can stop it all with one phone-call to Madame Jean he could make at any minute.

The Cons won’t even need their pesky how to disrupt committee meetings manual for some time. If will be quite awhile before the Defence committee can look into the cover-up of Afghan detainee documents, for example, among other troubling issues the Cons would rather not have committees shine lights on.

And Duffy thought it had something to do with the Ontario election…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Polls: Stockwell's face a turnoff

Alright, my bad, that’s an exaggeration. But only a slight one, according to the results of government-commissioned (yes, that means taxpayer-funded) focus group testing. Geez guys, I could have told you that for free.

But first let me just say that, for a government that is supposedly too manly to listen to polls, how ridiculous is it they’re commissioning surveys like this? Alright, moving on.

According to a Macleans.ca piece, Sage Research was hired by the Department of Public Safety to find-out how the public liked their new Web site. A find use of taxpaper dollars, to be sure.

The results as reported by the article are rather amusing, including that most people had no idea just what the heck the Public Safety department did (the answer is protect us from the terror if you’re playing at home).

When asked to guess, they came up with a wide variety of suggestions, each more wildly inaccurate than the last, from street and road safety to workers' compensation and - slightly alarmingly - "civil war."

Yeesh. More amusing, though, the respondents were annoyed the Web site seemed to be more of a propaganda shill for Canada’s New Government ™ then a Web site designed to provide information to Canadians on public safety:

"The combination of the picture of the minister and the perceived amount of the website devoted to news items contributes to the following negative perceptions about the website," SAGE glumly reported. "The site is seen to be more focused on promoting the government than it is about providing information about public safety [and] the information is seen as 'propaganda,' depending on one’s politics."

I guess it’s not much different from every other ‘government’ Web site under Decievin’ Steven in that respect then.

But back to Stock. Along the same vein, it seemed focus group participants reacted poorly to seeing Day’s smiling mug plastered all over the Web site. Thankfully, it seems the government listen to them (who said they don’t listen to polls?).

There is no record of the minister's response when confronted with the report. But a quick glance at the department's current website suggests someone was listening. Not a single picture of Stockwell Day appears anywhere on the front page, nor does he turn up anywhere else on the site, with the exception of his ministerial bio.

Give the people what they want: Less Stock!

One question was left unanswered by Kady O’Malley’s otherwise enlightening article however. How much did this whole focus group exercise cost the taxpayers anyway? Was it more or less than it cost the taxpayers for his defamation suit?

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

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

Want an election? Me? You're crazy!

Put another nail in the coffin for this parliament. The Conservatives are quickly and quietly putting the pieces in place for the election Steve Harper still continues to insist he totally doesn't want for a few more years yet.

On Friday, the Conservatives decided to cancel their national policy convention, which was scheduled for November in Winnipeg. If I can digress for a moment…November in Winnipeg, December in Montreal, do all political parties hate their members? Can we all get on board with bringing the Turks and Caicos into Canada? Now that's a winter convention location I could get behind.

Anyway, the convention was postponed until fall 2008 because of the imminent possibility of an election. Also, attending both the CPC campaign college this month and the convention could have put people over the legal donation limit, and I guess they've decided to start following that law for a change.

More interesting to note though is the recent change in messaging from the Con spinners. It was typified by Jim Prentice on CTV's Question Period over the weekend. Rather than the usual line of we don't want an election, we're going to govern until 2010 or whenever their fixed election date is, here's what Prentice had to say:

Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice refused Sunday to dampen election speculation, repeatedly coming back to the immediate parliamentary calendar when asked about his party's rising stock.

"I see a very busy month ahead," Prentice said when asked whether rising polling numbers for the Tories suggest to him a majority mandate is within sight.

"I see the budget coming later in the month. (Environment Minister) John Baird has spoken about his plans relative to the environment in the month ahead. So it's going to be a month that Canadians will be able to take stock of how this government is moving forward in a very activist way."

Your key phrase there is "taking stock." As in hey, look at all the great stuff we've done, don't we deserve to be re-elected, maybe with a majority, please? (Unless he was pleading for Stock Day to cross the floor…take Stock, please!) A subtle change perhaps, but I think in conjunction with Prentice's refusal to offer the usual "we don't want an election" platitude a telling one.

So, yet another piece of evidence Harper will be engineering his own defeat and triggering an election sooner, rather that later. I'm betting this spring. No doubt he's at home now practicing his totally surprised, didn't want this election, it's all the Liberal's fault face.

Really, though, particularly in minorities, all the time all parties spend to try to not "get blamed" for precipitating an election is rather lame. A few days in, most people could care less who started it. They just want to finish it.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers