French Debate
Tried to keep cribnotes, but nothing new was being said, so I started noting behaviour and stuff like that.
During the first hour, there were 2 times, once in a debate with Duceppe, and once with Layton, that Harper nearly blew a gasket.
Duceppe managed to control a lot of the debate through the first hour. During this time Harper looked nervous and was dominated by all 3 of the other leaders. At one point during a debate on taxes with Martin, Harper jumped in and practically shouted "You're talking about numbers. How can you seriously sit there and talk about numbers". He must have realized how dumb that sounded, as he seemed a bit confused as he continued.
Late in the first hour Duceppe to score on Martin by asking repeatedly "How much is left in the EI fund"? Whether you think this was a successful jab at Martin probably depends on whether you're a Duceppe supporter or a Martin supporter.
Second hour, Harper started to calm down a bit. Sometimes too much, as he appeared to be on valium at some points. At the same time Martin seemed as if he was getting frustrated, and he started to rock back and forth a lot as he was speaking.
Layton, meanwhile, was like a peacock the entire time, smiling, animated, like a Canadian Tony Randall. He was effective in his way, kind of like the cheerleader of the debate.
During the last half hour Harper either started to define party policy on the spot, decided to start announcing party policy during the debate, or else he lost one of his marbles.
First, he declared that he would be having a free vote on the issue of gay marriage, then later told Layton that he(Harper) and Layton had opposite opinions on gay marriage. Since Layton is announced as supporting gay marriage, Harper thus said for the first time in the campaign that he is opposed.
And really strange, when Martin asked Harper about the statements that Harper's MPs had made during the campaign about homosexuals and abortion, Harper told Martin that he (Martin) had made the exact same comments 2 days previous. I'm sure, during an election campaign especially, that if the PM came out and declared that gays would not be eligible for public jobs, we'd know about it.
Anyway, this is how I saw the leaders:
Duceppe: confident, very aggressive in a put-offish manner.
Layton: looked calm, no that's not true. He looked like he was on acid or happy pills, all smiley and bouncy. Scored some good points against Harper and Martin
Harper: Trying to control his emotions, sometimes nearly losing his temper. Calmed down later.
Martin: Initially calm and was doing a pretty good job considering he was the brunt of most of the attacks, but later on the attacks seemed to affect his performance.
the end.
What does Stephen Harper have in store for this country?
Dec 8, 2000, Harper had an article published in the National Post, entitled "Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada"
A few quotes:
"It is to take the bricks and begin building another home -- a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta"
"Separation will become a real issue the day the federal government decides to make it one"
"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country"
And of course there is his famous line about building firewalls around Alberta, but I was unable to find the article anyplace in cyberspace (is that term passe now? Is it still cool to talk about "surfing the web"?), so I'll let that one be.
But his cries for Albertan independance aside, the following Harper comment should shock all, and is particularly pertinent now that he is asking for votes:
"west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society."
Do these horrible people even deserve to vote? Perhaps they should be rounded up and...ok I doubt even he'd go that far.
***
Anyway, the subject of this entry was what does Harper have in store for us, and I think his own words speak volumes about what he believes. Even if this nasty fellow should ever become PM, there's hope in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, although he has promised to repeal that.
Vote.
Dec 8, 2000, Harper had an article published in the National Post, entitled "Separation, Alberta-style: It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada"
A few quotes:
"It is to take the bricks and begin building another home -- a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta"
"Separation will become a real issue the day the federal government decides to make it one"
"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country"
And of course there is his famous line about building firewalls around Alberta, but I was unable to find the article anyplace in cyberspace (is that term passe now? Is it still cool to talk about "surfing the web"?), so I'll let that one be.
But his cries for Albertan independance aside, the following Harper comment should shock all, and is particularly pertinent now that he is asking for votes:
"west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society."
Do these horrible people even deserve to vote? Perhaps they should be rounded up and...ok I doubt even he'd go that far.
***
Anyway, the subject of this entry was what does Harper have in store for us, and I think his own words speak volumes about what he believes. Even if this nasty fellow should ever become PM
Vote.
More on the Perils of Polling
David Olive writes in the Star's election blog (why does everyone suddenly have to have an election blog this year?) on an issue I wrote about a few days ago, the SES election polls.
Olive addresses the polling question that SES uses, and points out that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are not even mentioned in the question. OK, not much point in my giving a summary, since I've copy and pasted the whole thing right here, so take it away David Olive:
Pollster SES, whose daily polls in collaboration with CPAC have played such a prominent role in driving the media consensus that the Grits are doomed, reported last night that the Tory surge has gone into reverse. The Tories, according to SES, have slipped to 34 per cent, from 37 per cent the day before. That drops the Tories back to neck-and-neck status with the Grits, who clocked in yesterday at 33 per cent. And makes everything you've heard in the past few days about the "ineffectual" Liberal attack ads rather suspect.
We get a kick out of the question SES asks "200 potential voters" each night (which are blended results from 400 more voters interviewed the previous two nights to produce a "three day rolling sample" - don't ask):
"Some people think that the Liberals have done a good job running the country and that Paul Martin would be [a] strong prime minister. Others think that the Liberals have been in power too long and that it's time for a change. Which of these two opinions best reflects your views?"
No mention of Stephen Harper. Whenever Pierre Trudeau was asked about his dismal poll standings, he'd reply, "Consider the alternative." The alternative in 1972 and 1974 kept Trudeau in power, and in 1980 revived his briefly interrupted residency at 24 Sussex.
As the more candid pollsters will tell you, they can get you any results you want depending on what question they ask.
So how about:
"Some people think the Liberals have done a good job managing the economy over the past decade and that Paul Martin as PM would continue to build on his successful record as finance minister. Others think that the Liberals have been in power too long, becoming arrogant and corrupt, and that it's time to replace Martin with Stephen Harper or one of the other leaders. Which of these two opinions best reflects your views?"
Or:
"Some people think Stephen Harper is a strong leader who would end the Liberal era of arrogance and corruption. Others worry that he has no experience in running a government and would be more likely than Paul Martin or the other leaders to impose an agenda of 'social conservatism' on Canadians. Which of these two opinions best reflects your views?"
The correct answer to all three questions, of course, is "Why are you bothering me, I'm only a 'potential' voter. Don't you want to speak to some real ones?"
note: here is a link to the SES poll that is referred to by David Olive.
David Olive writes in the Star's election blog (why does everyone suddenly have to have an election blog this year?) on an issue I wrote about a few days ago, the SES election polls.
Olive addresses the polling question that SES uses, and points out that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are not even mentioned in the question. OK, not much point in my giving a summary, since I've copy and pasted the whole thing right here, so take it away David Olive:
Pollster SES, whose daily polls in collaboration with CPAC have played such a prominent role in driving the media consensus that the Grits are doomed, reported last night that the Tory surge has gone into reverse. The Tories, according to SES, have slipped to 34 per cent, from 37 per cent the day before. That drops the Tories back to neck-and-neck status with the Grits, who clocked in yesterday at 33 per cent. And makes everything you've heard in the past few days about the "ineffectual" Liberal attack ads rather suspect.
We get a kick out of the question SES asks "200 potential voters" each night (which are blended results from 400 more voters interviewed the previous two nights to produce a "three day rolling sample" - don't ask):
"Some people think that the Liberals have done a good job running the country and that Paul Martin would be [a] strong prime minister. Others think that the Liberals have been in power too long and that it's time for a change. Which of these two opinions best reflects your views?"
No mention of Stephen Harper. Whenever Pierre Trudeau was asked about his dismal poll standings, he'd reply, "Consider the alternative." The alternative in 1972 and 1974 kept Trudeau in power, and in 1980 revived his briefly interrupted residency at 24 Sussex.
As the more candid pollsters will tell you, they can get you any results you want depending on what question they ask.
So how about:
"Some people think the Liberals have done a good job managing the economy over the past decade and that Paul Martin as PM would continue to build on his successful record as finance minister. Others think that the Liberals have been in power too long, becoming arrogant and corrupt, and that it's time to replace Martin with Stephen Harper or one of the other leaders. Which of these two opinions best reflects your views?"
Or:
"Some people think Stephen Harper is a strong leader who would end the Liberal era of arrogance and corruption. Others worry that he has no experience in running a government and would be more likely than Paul Martin or the other leaders to impose an agenda of 'social conservatism' on Canadians. Which of these two opinions best reflects your views?"
The correct answer to all three questions, of course, is "Why are you bothering me, I'm only a 'potential' voter. Don't you want to speak to some real ones?"
note: here is a link to the SES poll that is referred to by David Olive.
What's up with Bourque? The guy created the best site in the country (possibly one of the best in the world) for quick access to the most important news from all different sources. Mr Bourque is respected, and has always presented the headlines and links to the stories as is, until this election.
Now it seems he is colouring the headlines with his own opinions.
Ane xample is the CBC article entitled "Harper unfazed by Liberal attack ads", which on the Bourque site becomes "Harper Unfazed By Desperate Liberal Attack Ads".
Is Bourque Newswatch a news gateway or an opinion website? If he is going to colour his presentation of the news with his own opinion he should present his site as what it is.
Now it seems he is colouring the headlines with his own opinions.
Ane xample is the CBC article entitled "Harper unfazed by Liberal attack ads", which on the Bourque site becomes "Harper Unfazed By Desperate Liberal Attack Ads".
Is Bourque Newswatch a news gateway or an opinion website? If he is going to colour his presentation of the news with his own opinion he should present his site as what it is.
Why is it that when a movie comes on tv that I already own on DVD, meaning I could watch it without commercial interruption in 5.1 dolby surround with SRS and a bunch of other crap which I don't use because I don't know what the hell it is, that I always end up sitting and watching the "edited for tv" version.
You know, the version with the little TBS symbol in the bottom right, Mel Gibson swearing "Forget you!", and punctuated by ads for Ford and Minute Maid. Somehow they manage to cut out the best scenes (ever watch Desperado on TV?), and when you've seen the DVD version, you can't help but notice other little snip jobs they've done to save time.
So the next time "A Knight's Tale" comes on tv, you'd think I'd just get out my DVD version and watch it instead, but no, for some reason I'm sure I'll end up sitting through the whole thing on City-TV.
You know, the version with the little TBS symbol in the bottom right, Mel Gibson swearing "Forget you!", and punctuated by ads for Ford and Minute Maid. Somehow they manage to cut out the best scenes (ever watch Desperado on TV?), and when you've seen the DVD version, you can't help but notice other little snip jobs they've done to save time.
So the next time "A Knight's Tale" comes on tv, you'd think I'd just get out my DVD version and watch it instead, but no, for some reason I'm sure I'll end up sitting through the whole thing on City-TV.
I had to post something to move that horrible Stephen Harper head further down the page.
I'm trying to understand the polls that have been coming out recently over the past few days. First we have the SES rolling polls which for the past week have been giving the Conservatives a growing lead over the Liberals, then yesterday and today a Leger poll and an Ipsos Reid poll showed the Liberals still in the lead.
All three polls show the Liberals at 32 and 33 percent among decided voters, but while Leger and Ipsos Reid show the Conservatives at 30 and 31 percent, the SES rolling poll has them at 37%. That's quite a difference, and as the Sun has been more than pleased to point out it makes it appear as if the Conservatives have the makings of a good lead.
The Leger Poll was taken over a period of 4 days, with a total of 1500 respondents.
The Ipsos-Reid Poll was also taken over a 4-day period with a total of 2000 respondents.
The SES poll is a little more complicated. Simply put, it is a poll of 600 people (a very small sample) taken over 3 days. SES polls 200 people per day, and each day adds the new data to the poll and drops the old data from 3 days ago. Get it? Got it? Good.
Anyway, I can't believe how little of this stuff I remember from university. I'm supposed to have a degree in political science, and I can remember taking an entire year of this polling crap in second year, but do you think I can remember it now? Suffice to say that a poll of 1000 people is necessary for a poll to have an acceptable margin of error. The SES polls fall far short of that mark.
These SES polls are so out of whack with Ipsos-Reid, which sets the standard for polling in this country, that the folks at SES are going to have to spend some time reworking their model before the next election. Somebody said, and I've just done a bit of unsuccessful googling to try to get their name, that election polls can be weapons of mass destruction. With so many newspapers picking up these SES polls and concluding that the Conservatives are leading, it's entirely possible that this could have an affect on how some people vote. Conservatives, feeling secure that their party has a good lead, may find it less urgent to get out and vote. Some NDPers may choose to vote Liberal. Whatever.
Conclusion. There is something wrong with the polling model that SES is using in this election. It's nice, it's gratifying, to have day by day polling results, but it might be smarter to ignore SES poll results this election and wait a few days for more thorough poll results.
I'm trying to understand the polls that have been coming out recently over the past few days. First we have the SES rolling polls which for the past week have been giving the Conservatives a growing lead over the Liberals, then yesterday and today a Leger poll and an Ipsos Reid poll showed the Liberals still in the lead.
All three polls show the Liberals at 32 and 33 percent among decided voters, but while Leger and Ipsos Reid show the Conservatives at 30 and 31 percent, the SES rolling poll has them at 37%. That's quite a difference, and as the Sun has been more than pleased to point out it makes it appear as if the Conservatives have the makings of a good lead.
The Leger Poll was taken over a period of 4 days, with a total of 1500 respondents.
The Ipsos-Reid Poll was also taken over a 4-day period with a total of 2000 respondents.
The SES poll is a little more complicated. Simply put, it is a poll of 600 people (a very small sample) taken over 3 days. SES polls 200 people per day, and each day adds the new data to the poll and drops the old data from 3 days ago. Get it? Got it? Good.
Anyway, I can't believe how little of this stuff I remember from university. I'm supposed to have a degree in political science, and I can remember taking an entire year of this polling crap in second year, but do you think I can remember it now? Suffice to say that a poll of 1000 people is necessary for a poll to have an acceptable margin of error. The SES polls fall far short of that mark.
These SES polls are so out of whack with Ipsos-Reid, which sets the standard for polling in this country, that the folks at SES are going to have to spend some time reworking their model before the next election. Somebody said, and I've just done a bit of unsuccessful googling to try to get their name, that election polls can be weapons of mass destruction. With so many newspapers picking up these SES polls and concluding that the Conservatives are leading, it's entirely possible that this could have an affect on how some people vote. Conservatives, feeling secure that their party has a good lead, may find it less urgent to get out and vote. Some NDPers may choose to vote Liberal. Whatever.
Conclusion. There is something wrong with the polling model that SES is using in this election. It's nice, it's gratifying, to have day by day polling results, but it might be smarter to ignore SES poll results this election and wait a few days for more thorough poll results.
Ed's Back!
The NDP have a nice little website, simple yet it convey's their message. That is if orange on green doesn't make you ill.
Just watched a fun little video from their site called "Ed's Back", which looks like something a bunch of 80 year old ad execs might produce if they were trying to target the "MTV Generation". It runs a little long, but it's interesting.
Windows Media. For other formats visit their site.
The NDP have a nice little website, simple yet it convey's their message. That is if orange on green doesn't make you ill.
Just watched a fun little video from their site called "Ed's Back", which looks like something a bunch of 80 year old ad execs might produce if they were trying to target the "MTV Generation". It runs a little long, but it's interesting.
Windows Media. For other formats visit their site.
National Post story
Harper's press secretary slaps Canadian Press photographer, tells him to 'shut up'
Anger boiled over on the Stephen Harper campaign this week when press secretary Carolyn Stewart-Olsen told a Canadian Press photographer to "shut up" and gave him two gentle slaps on the face, saying she was not happy with the pictures he has been taking.
***
Harper's defenders are driven wild by the fact that the media appears to be waiting for him to slip up, for his campign to derail. Why, for instance, are questions about social issues being thrown at Harper by the media?
The reasons are thus: Anyone who has followed Harper's career is aware that he is a firebrand, a man whose mouth usually operates much more quickly than his brain (recall his comments in the House of Commons about where to find photos of Svend Robinson). The media is fully aware of the sudden change that has come over Harper since the election started, and they want to pop the bubble of artificiality that Harper's handlers have created around him. The rest of us are watching out of interest, waiting to see in which direction he will fly when that bubble is popped.
Harper's press secretary slaps Canadian Press photographer, tells him to 'shut up'
Anger boiled over on the Stephen Harper campaign this week when press secretary Carolyn Stewart-Olsen told a Canadian Press photographer to "shut up" and gave him two gentle slaps on the face, saying she was not happy with the pictures he has been taking.
***
Harper's defenders are driven wild by the fact that the media appears to be waiting for him to slip up, for his campign to derail. Why, for instance, are questions about social issues being thrown at Harper by the media?
The reasons are thus: Anyone who has followed Harper's career is aware that he is a firebrand, a man whose mouth usually operates much more quickly than his brain (recall his comments in the House of Commons about where to find photos of Svend Robinson). The media is fully aware of the sudden change that has come over Harper since the election started, and they want to pop the bubble of artificiality that Harper's handlers have created around him. The rest of us are watching out of interest, waiting to see in which direction he will fly when that bubble is popped.
I'm working on a post, go away.
No, wait, if you're looking for something to read, try this from the Washington Monthly. It's an article called Blog Navel Gazing, and is related to the issue of the post I'm working on.
No, wait, if you're looking for something to read, try this from the Washington Monthly. It's an article called Blog Navel Gazing, and is related to the issue of the post I'm working on.
I'm putting my foot down (some would say I'm stamping my feet). Nobody is allowed to phone me between 10:45 and 11:30 while the election campaign is on. Fortunately the hockey game is in OT which means I can still catch The National.
While writing this, Calgary scored the winning goal. I haven't watched a lot of Flames hockey, but I have to say that I am very impressed by their defence, based on tonight's game. No matter how intense the play in the opposing zone, Calgary seems to always have a man outside the zone, ready to pick up the puck if it is dumped towards their end. Toronto, like most NHL teams now, likes to move all their players into the opposing zone during a rush, emulating the tactics that made the Red Army teams so successful. However after 15 or so years of this being standard in the NHL, teams have worked out defense strategies to counter these tactics, so you don't have the team on offense standing in position in the 4 corners of the zone for instance, seemingly unchecked, and passing the puck back and forth waiting for scoring chances like the Red Army team was always able to do.
I'm an expert on everything.
While writing this, Calgary scored the winning goal. I haven't watched a lot of Flames hockey, but I have to say that I am very impressed by their defence, based on tonight's game. No matter how intense the play in the opposing zone, Calgary seems to always have a man outside the zone, ready to pick up the puck if it is dumped towards their end. Toronto, like most NHL teams now, likes to move all their players into the opposing zone during a rush, emulating the tactics that made the Red Army teams so successful. However after 15 or so years of this being standard in the NHL, teams have worked out defense strategies to counter these tactics, so you don't have the team on offense standing in position in the 4 corners of the zone for instance, seemingly unchecked, and passing the puck back and forth waiting for scoring chances like the Red Army team was always able to do.
I'm an expert on everything.
Things you don't need to happen during your election campaign
Stephen Harper's election campaign seems determined to go off the rails. I've avoided criticizing Harper for insignificant flaws in his campaign, but it's pretty hard to ignore what happened today, especially since the occurrence was caught on camera.
The picture below is of Bob Smyth, an elderly protester being punched in the face by a Conservative today at a Harper campaign function:
Click on the picture for the full article.
I've campaigned with a few PC Party leaders, and I've seen campaign stops get ugly, but taking it to this level is a bit out of the ordinary. Usually in situations with protesters our party supporters were advised to link arms and form a chain to try to keep the protesters away from where the leader was speaking. If the protesters became vocal, so did our folks, singing "O Canada", or something. There was never any violence, even when we were beset by organized busloads of youth party members from other parties.
According to Laurie Arron, political co-ordinator of Canadians for Equal Marriage:
Mr. Arron was shouted down by cries of "shut up, shut up."
Tory supporters then hit Mr. (Bob) Smyth with signs and a man punched him in the face before police intervened.
This is 2 days in a row that Stephen Harper's message has been overshadowed by questions about his position on hot topics like abortion and gay marriage. 2 days do not make or break an election campaign, but with the media exposure given to Mr Arron and Mr Smyth today, there's a high likelihood that Harper's troubles are not over yet.
Stephen Harper's election campaign seems determined to go off the rails. I've avoided criticizing Harper for insignificant flaws in his campaign, but it's pretty hard to ignore what happened today, especially since the occurrence was caught on camera.
The picture below is of Bob Smyth, an elderly protester being punched in the face by a Conservative today at a Harper campaign function:
Click on the picture for the full article.
I've campaigned with a few PC Party leaders, and I've seen campaign stops get ugly, but taking it to this level is a bit out of the ordinary. Usually in situations with protesters our party supporters were advised to link arms and form a chain to try to keep the protesters away from where the leader was speaking. If the protesters became vocal, so did our folks, singing "O Canada", or something. There was never any violence, even when we were beset by organized busloads of youth party members from other parties.
According to Laurie Arron, political co-ordinator of Canadians for Equal Marriage:
Mr. Arron was shouted down by cries of "shut up, shut up."
Tory supporters then hit Mr. (Bob) Smyth with signs and a man punched him in the face before police intervened.
This is 2 days in a row that Stephen Harper's message has been overshadowed by questions about his position on hot topics like abortion and gay marriage. 2 days do not make or break an election campaign, but with the media exposure given to Mr Arron and Mr Smyth today, there's a high likelihood that Harper's troubles are not over yet.
Happy 200th post!!!!
While I respect his decision to support his Conservative candidate's campaign financially, I have to express a bit of disappointment at Warren Kinsella's decision. After all, I keep my links categorized on the right side of my blog, and it's going to be a real hassle, almost 2 whole minutes out of my day, if I have to move the link to his website from the Liberal category to the Conservative one.
Thanks a lot Warren!!!
***
The odd thing is that Kinsella and I are on parallel but opposite tracks when it comes to which party we support right now. I am a Conservative Party member who plans to vote for my Liberal candidate (yes it's official- for now) until Stephen Harper is replaced as party leader, and Kinsella is a Liberal who doesn't support the current leadership of his party during this election.
***
I remember how the tv show Cheers feted it's 200th episode, by having the stars sit in a row and discuss their favouritest moments on the show.
I thought I'd do something similar, but since I'm the only star of this blog, well....
OK the only moment I am going to bring back is the first sentence I ever published:
"This Blog will deal mainly with Canadian politics, and will focus on the Progressive Conservative party of Canada."
Now that the subject of my blog no longer exists, I guess my writing is even pointlesser then ever.
While I respect his decision to support his Conservative candidate's campaign financially, I have to express a bit of disappointment at Warren Kinsella's decision. After all, I keep my links categorized on the right side of my blog, and it's going to be a real hassle, almost 2 whole minutes out of my day, if I have to move the link to his website from the Liberal category to the Conservative one.
Thanks a lot Warren!!!
***
The odd thing is that Kinsella and I are on parallel but opposite tracks when it comes to which party we support right now. I am a Conservative Party member who plans to vote for my Liberal candidate (yes it's official- for now) until Stephen Harper is replaced as party leader, and Kinsella is a Liberal who doesn't support the current leadership of his party during this election.
***
I remember how the tv show Cheers feted it's 200th episode, by having the stars sit in a row and discuss their favouritest moments on the show.
I thought I'd do something similar, but since I'm the only star of this blog, well....
OK the only moment I am going to bring back is the first sentence I ever published:
"This Blog will deal mainly with Canadian politics, and will focus on the Progressive Conservative party of Canada."
Now that the subject of my blog no longer exists, I guess my writing is even pointlesser then ever.
More talk of a Conservative-Bloc alliance. This time from the bloc, which is stating that their goal in such an alliance is the separation of Quebec in a "third referendum". Duh..
Are we clear on this now? Conservative minority government + Bloc Alliance = Quebec separation referendum. Just what else does Harper have planned for us?
Bloc wants big gains from any Tory deal
Longueuil, Que. and Ottawa — The Bloc Québécois said yesterday it would milk a Conservative minority for all it is worth in the hopes of improving the overall situation in Quebec and then bringing the province out of Canada.
After a speech south of Montreal, Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe said there is no contradiction in helping a federalist party govern Canada, and being fully committed to Quebec independence. The goal is to better economic and social conditions in Quebec to pave the way for a victory in a third referendum.
continued
Are we clear on this now? Conservative minority government + Bloc Alliance = Quebec separation referendum. Just what else does Harper have planned for us?
Bloc wants big gains from any Tory deal
Longueuil, Que. and Ottawa — The Bloc Québécois said yesterday it would milk a Conservative minority for all it is worth in the hopes of improving the overall situation in Quebec and then bringing the province out of Canada.
After a speech south of Montreal, Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe said there is no contradiction in helping a federalist party govern Canada, and being fully committed to Quebec independence. The goal is to better economic and social conditions in Quebec to pave the way for a victory in a third referendum.
continued
here's a reason why for the first time in this election, I am praying for a majority government, a Liberal majority government:
from today's Globe and Mail
Liberal woes fuel Tory-Bloc theories
Lindsay, Ont., Mirabel, Que., Ottawa — The Conservative Party could take office with the help of the Bloc Quebecois even if the Liberals end up with a razor-thin edge in seats in the coming vote, a key Conservative MP says.
House Leader John Reynolds said yesterday that he can see circumstances in which the Bloc and the Conservatives would vote together to defeat the Liberals should the Grits win a small minority.
"If the Liberals win one more seat than us and the Bloc and us defeat the government, it would be obvious what the next step would be," Mr. Reynolds said in an interview yesterday. "It would be irresponsible to hold another election right away."
read the rest of the story
***
PS, since when is the new party the "Tories"?
from today's Globe and Mail
Liberal woes fuel Tory-Bloc theories
Lindsay, Ont., Mirabel, Que., Ottawa — The Conservative Party could take office with the help of the Bloc Quebecois even if the Liberals end up with a razor-thin edge in seats in the coming vote, a key Conservative MP says.
House Leader John Reynolds said yesterday that he can see circumstances in which the Bloc and the Conservatives would vote together to defeat the Liberals should the Grits win a small minority.
"If the Liberals win one more seat than us and the Bloc and us defeat the government, it would be obvious what the next step would be," Mr. Reynolds said in an interview yesterday. "It would be irresponsible to hold another election right away."
read the rest of the story
***
PS, since when is the new party the "Tories"?
The year was 1992. The three main parties at the time, the PCs, the Liberals, and the NDP had all united in an attempt to gain support for the Charlottetown Accord.
Among other things, the accord would have provided for an elected and effective Senate, one of the main planks of Reform Party policy at the time. But while the three main parties were working to reform the country's institutions, two parties were working together against the reforms that Charlottetown would have brought about, two parties collectively known as the "NO" campaign. They were the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois.
Today the Reform Party is referred to as the Conservative Party, but it is led by exactly the same group which led it to a shameful victory in 1992. Stephen Harper, the current Conservative Party leader, was deputy Reform party leader and policy chief back then.
Sadly, today the Reform/Conservative party returned to it's old ally, making it official that Stephen Harper will seek to form a coalition of disgrace with the Bloc Quebecois in order to gain power in Ottawa.
Boooo! Shame!
Among other things, the accord would have provided for an elected and effective Senate, one of the main planks of Reform Party policy at the time. But while the three main parties were working to reform the country's institutions, two parties were working together against the reforms that Charlottetown would have brought about, two parties collectively known as the "NO" campaign. They were the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois.
Today the Reform Party is referred to as the Conservative Party, but it is led by exactly the same group which led it to a shameful victory in 1992. Stephen Harper, the current Conservative Party leader, was deputy Reform party leader and policy chief back then.
Sadly, today the Reform/Conservative party returned to it's old ally, making it official that Stephen Harper will seek to form a coalition of disgrace with the Bloc Quebecois in order to gain power in Ottawa.
Boooo! Shame!
Morrissey Fans will hate this, an audio blog by Tony Pierce from Los Angeles. Pierce sings Morrissey's Ask, apparently on his computer microphone. It gets better and funnier as it goes on.
Listen
p.s. here are the lyrics if you want to follow along.
P.s.p.s. For Morrissey fans
here is a website with mp3s of 4 unreleased songs
Listen
p.s. here are the lyrics if you want to follow along.
P.s.p.s. For Morrissey fans
here is a website with mp3s of 4 unreleased songs
Is this beginning to give you nightmares?
Do you feel like you have to keep looking over your shoulder any time you are reading Warren Kinsella's blog? Does it seem like no matter where you are in the room, the eye seems to be staring right at you, plumbing your soul? He knows what you did, and you can feel the accusation in his gaze.
No! Stop! Get out of my mind!!!
The scary version.
Well help is here. Modern technology and all that.
The non-scary version.
Testimonials:
"Thanks to modern technology I can sleep at night. Thank you modern technology."
Lucy M Montgomery, PEI
"Duhh.. Where can I get a pair of those sunglasses?"
Mike Wilson, Etobicoke
"The new look not only looks great, but also helps save his eye from the effects of harmful UV rays."
Mr. Kinsella's optometrist
Do you feel like you have to keep looking over your shoulder any time you are reading Warren Kinsella's blog? Does it seem like no matter where you are in the room, the eye seems to be staring right at you, plumbing your soul? He knows what you did, and you can feel the accusation in his gaze.
No! Stop! Get out of my mind!!!
The scary version.
Well help is here. Modern technology and all that.
The non-scary version.
Testimonials:
"Thanks to modern technology I can sleep at night. Thank you modern technology."
Lucy M Montgomery, PEI
"Duhh.. Where can I get a pair of those sunglasses?"
Mike Wilson, Etobicoke
"The new look not only looks great, but also helps save his eye from the effects of harmful UV rays."
Mr. Kinsella's optometrist
Nobody gives a damn, but I'll tell you anyway. I'm half newfie. Whatever that means. It's not like people look at me and ask "where are you from, originally?", or treat me as second-class. It's just a sign of the success of our country's multi-cultural policies, how easily the newfie has integrated into Canadian society. You even have occasional marriages between those of the Canadian race and those of the newfie race (read the second sentence again for proof).
Anyway, I don't have a clue why I wrote the above paragraph, except as maybe an introduction to the clever editorial I have posted below from last week's Labradorian (serving the people of central and coastal Labrador). Since so much focus this week was on Stephen Harper's campaign swing through Atlantic Canada, I thought it was appropriate to find some opinion from the region. Note that this editorial was written before the election campaign actually began.
Like a dog on a Bono
When it comes to election campaigning, there are few rigs as well oiled as the big red federal Liberal machine.
Provincial politicians get their licks in here and there when campaigning, but the federal guys, well, they don’t fool around. They don’t need to talk to the public or put forth actual policy or even make promises. They seem to believe tricky campaigning and pork barreling is the route best taken and they have it down to a science.
They just have to throw money at anything that makes a sound, and reach into the bag of tricks every once in a while.
Last week, Paul Martin pulled U2 front man Bono out of the hat, sat him down alongside, and smiled from earlobe to eyebrow as the Irish-born rock legend sang his praises. It was, undoubtedly, the “sweetest thing” to behold.
And all it cost was $70 million. Not bad for a “one” day gig. The money will be poured into the Bono-backed Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
Watching it all, we couldn’t help but smile. You’ve got to hand it to these guys — they weren’t behind the door when God was handing out electorate wheel grease. It’s campaigning at it’s absolute slickest — attempt to look “with it” by hanging with the lead singer for the “greatest band in the world”. It’s like George Bush rap-battling with Eminem — grossly transparent.
Nevertheless, it got us thinking. If Bono can squeeze $70 million out of Martin, why couldn’t Labrador give something similar a shot?
We say let’s send Harry Martin to Ottawa! Or The Flummies. Hey, if Bono can wrangle $70 million out of the Prime Minister, we should be good for a couple of million at least.
We know Paul Martin’s “desire” is to get re-elected with a majority government over his closest contender, the “stranger in a strange land” Stephen Harper.
We know he’ll use every tactic available to help him have a downright “beautiful day” when polling ends, including drawing rock stars out of the woodwork. As a slick, seasoned politician, Paul Martin knows how to move in “mysterious ways” and he recognizes a potential winning idea when he sees or hears it.
So how about it Paul? If we can convince Harry or The Flummies to back up the campaign, do you think you could “hold us, thrill us” with a few extra bucks and a solidified, ratified long term plan for the Base? After all, we don’t want to be “stuck in a moment” when the two year reprieve comes to an end in 2006.
Perhaps you could provide a little kick-in for some Lower Churchill development? As far as that project goes, we “still haven’t found what we’re looking for”.
We know the province is dragging its heels on facets of the Trans-Labrador Highway, but you’re spending hundreds of millions widening the highway in Quebec — surely God you can play a larger role in tossing us a bit of pavement to “walk on” here where the “streets have no name”.
Alas, as talented as our musical offerings may be, they represent but one seat, and Paul likely sees the mass appeal of international rockers as a way to deliver votes across the board.
Aside from parading celebrities around, he’ll also lean on the lack of an alternative throughout the campaign, stressing we can’t possibly live “with or without” a Liberal government.
Just imagine the “rattle and hum” of debating the issues and having actual, bonafide alternatives to the four marginal, regional parties that currently vie for the Liberal election table scraps?
A choice? Why, that would be “even better than the real thing”.
Put the rock stars back in the hat Paul. The voters are over here under the “Joshua Tree”.
And we’d like to think we don’t impress that easily.
Anyway, I don't have a clue why I wrote the above paragraph, except as maybe an introduction to the clever editorial I have posted below from last week's Labradorian (serving the people of central and coastal Labrador). Since so much focus this week was on Stephen Harper's campaign swing through Atlantic Canada, I thought it was appropriate to find some opinion from the region. Note that this editorial was written before the election campaign actually began.
Like a dog on a Bono
When it comes to election campaigning, there are few rigs as well oiled as the big red federal Liberal machine.
Provincial politicians get their licks in here and there when campaigning, but the federal guys, well, they don’t fool around. They don’t need to talk to the public or put forth actual policy or even make promises. They seem to believe tricky campaigning and pork barreling is the route best taken and they have it down to a science.
They just have to throw money at anything that makes a sound, and reach into the bag of tricks every once in a while.
Last week, Paul Martin pulled U2 front man Bono out of the hat, sat him down alongside, and smiled from earlobe to eyebrow as the Irish-born rock legend sang his praises. It was, undoubtedly, the “sweetest thing” to behold.
And all it cost was $70 million. Not bad for a “one” day gig. The money will be poured into the Bono-backed Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
Watching it all, we couldn’t help but smile. You’ve got to hand it to these guys — they weren’t behind the door when God was handing out electorate wheel grease. It’s campaigning at it’s absolute slickest — attempt to look “with it” by hanging with the lead singer for the “greatest band in the world”. It’s like George Bush rap-battling with Eminem — grossly transparent.
Nevertheless, it got us thinking. If Bono can squeeze $70 million out of Martin, why couldn’t Labrador give something similar a shot?
We say let’s send Harry Martin to Ottawa! Or The Flummies. Hey, if Bono can wrangle $70 million out of the Prime Minister, we should be good for a couple of million at least.
We know Paul Martin’s “desire” is to get re-elected with a majority government over his closest contender, the “stranger in a strange land” Stephen Harper.
We know he’ll use every tactic available to help him have a downright “beautiful day” when polling ends, including drawing rock stars out of the woodwork. As a slick, seasoned politician, Paul Martin knows how to move in “mysterious ways” and he recognizes a potential winning idea when he sees or hears it.
So how about it Paul? If we can convince Harry or The Flummies to back up the campaign, do you think you could “hold us, thrill us” with a few extra bucks and a solidified, ratified long term plan for the Base? After all, we don’t want to be “stuck in a moment” when the two year reprieve comes to an end in 2006.
Perhaps you could provide a little kick-in for some Lower Churchill development? As far as that project goes, we “still haven’t found what we’re looking for”.
We know the province is dragging its heels on facets of the Trans-Labrador Highway, but you’re spending hundreds of millions widening the highway in Quebec — surely God you can play a larger role in tossing us a bit of pavement to “walk on” here where the “streets have no name”.
Alas, as talented as our musical offerings may be, they represent but one seat, and Paul likely sees the mass appeal of international rockers as a way to deliver votes across the board.
Aside from parading celebrities around, he’ll also lean on the lack of an alternative throughout the campaign, stressing we can’t possibly live “with or without” a Liberal government.
Just imagine the “rattle and hum” of debating the issues and having actual, bonafide alternatives to the four marginal, regional parties that currently vie for the Liberal election table scraps?
A choice? Why, that would be “even better than the real thing”.
Put the rock stars back in the hat Paul. The voters are over here under the “Joshua Tree”.
And we’d like to think we don’t impress that easily.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
