A common theme.

One thing I've noticed since the Tories took office, is the Opposition parties (especially those that consider themselves the "natural Governing party) to cast blam on the Conservatives for things they themselves had no interest in fixing while they had the chance.  Yet again the Leader of the Liberal party is "Shocked and amazed" at how the Conservatives have let something like Attawapiskat happen, failing to accept his own responsibility of neglegence.

Sun News puts it across quite plainly, and it's been a trend I've seen since before the Tories took a majority.  Rae ignores history.

Bob

The "Harper Government" must be doing a lot right...

When one of the major complaints against it is the appropriation of media terminology "The Harper Government".

The major negative media buzz has been trivial inconsequential items against the Conservatives time as a majority Government. The biggest buzzes revolve around;
1. The profanity of the NDP Opposistion party. The Globe and Mail.
2. The use of media terminology "The Harper Government". The Globe and Mail.
3. The profanity of the Liberal party. Huffington post.

Now maybe it's the type of people reposting stuff like this, or maybe this is the best that these media outlets can come up with.  Whatever the case may be, these articles say a lot about how well the Conservative Government is now running the country. When you have to "find things" to blame on the Government, it says 2 things: 1. the Government is doing well. 2. The quality of the media outlet by what they print. 

I start to wonder if the "Other Side of the House of Commons" is "winning" much like Charlie Sheen and the reporters of these stories.

Bob

The Cabinet comes out today for the new CPC Majority Government.

First thing I noticed as I listen to CPAC; The 2 Opposition parties (that are left in Parl) strategists are coming back with the same old rhetoricic about "why the Government fell in the 40th Parlaiment, which obviously didn't fly with a plurality of Canadians.  It's not like this hasn't been discredited throughout the Election Campaign, and you can see by the results that the propaganda that "The Government fell because it was in contempt of Parliament" was seen through by the voters for what it was, bunk (a ploy, a farce, a kangaroo court of Opposition members in committee who weren't getting exactly what they wanted and weren't going to stand for it any longer.)

The second thing I noticed, and this seems to be trending lately among the media; It's more about the reporters than it is about the news.  This is a disturbing trend of narcissism within the Main Stream Media which should be making viewers/readers wary of both quality and quantity of the information these self important reporters/media outlets are presenting to them.

Here is the Cabinet for the 41st Parlaiment from the website of the Prime Minister.

The Ministry

	The Right Honourable Stephen Joseph Harper Prime Minister of Canada
	The Honourable Robert Douglas Nicholson Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
	The Honourable Marjory LeBreton Leader of the Government in the Senate
	The Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay Minister of National Defence
	The Honourable Vic Toews Minister of Public Safety
	The Honourable Rona Ambrose Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women
	The Honourable Diane Finley Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development
	The Honourable Beverley J. Oda Minister of International Cooperation
	The Honourable John Baird Minister of Foreign Affairs
	The Honourable Tony Clement President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario
	The Honourable James Michael Flaherty Minister of Finance
	The Honourable Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
	The Honourable Jason Kenney Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism
	The Honourable Gerry Ritz Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board
	The Honourable Christian Paradis Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)
	The Honourable James Moore Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages
	The Honourable Denis Lebel Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec
	The Honourable Leona Aglukkaq Minister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency
	The Honourable Keith Ashfield Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway
	The Honourable Peter Kent Minister of the Environment
	The Honourable Lisa Raitt Minister of Labour
	The Honourable Gail Shea Minister of National Revenue
	The Honourable John Duncan Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
	The Honourable Steven Blaney Minister of Veterans Affairs
	The Honourable Edward Fast Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway
	The Honourable Joe Oliver Minister of Natural Resources
	The Honourable Peter Penashue Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada
	The Honourable Julian Fantino Associate Minister of National Defence
	The Honourable Bernard Valcourt Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie)
	The Honourable Gordon O'Connor Minister of State and Chief Government Whip
	The Honourable Maxime Bernier Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism)
	The Honourable Diane Ablonczy Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas and Consular Affairs)
	The Honourable Lynne Yelich Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)
	The Honourable Steven John Fletcher Minister of State (Transport)
	The Honourable Gary Goodyear Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)
	The Honourable Ted Menzies Minister of State (Finance)
	The Honourable Tim Uppal Minister of State (Democratic Reform)
	The Honourable Alice Wong Minister of State (Seniors)
	The Honourable Bal Gosal Minister of State (Sport)

Prophesy fulfilled.

 About 2 hours after the election results started coming into Saskatchewan Michael Ignatieff indicated that he was going to resign as leader of the Liberal party.   Man, I TOTALLY called that!!  When the House decided to push an election I even tweeted my goodbyes to Iggy right off, letting him know that I thought this election would be his folly.

Now I'll be honest, I had NO expectation that the NDP would MASSACRE both the Liberals AND the Bloc (especially after having read their platform).  I expect the Dippers to pull up somewhere around 70, I coulnd't get a feel for Libs or Bloc though.  I even expected the Conservatives to pull a slight Majority 157-159, but I am THRILLED with the extra 167 seat territory!!

What a great turn of events for both the Country, and the Conservative party!  Time to get some work done.

Bob

Voting, both a right AND a responsibility.

Today as I was reading through some blogs on the impending election, I wandered acoss one that reminded me why the push for people to "just vote!" is wrong.   This Blogger (whom I don't know, and this was my first visit to their site) said "I have always reflexively cringed whenever I hear blather about forcing our youth to vote.".

But I go a step further, and express how I cringe thinking about how many people out there will be voting based on propaganda!!  In watching and participating in some of the social media punditry (of which when I include myself I use the term loosely) on Twitter, my initial assessment has been confirmed.  I have maintained that the general population is swayed more by emotion than logic, which is why:
A. Attack ads are used
B. There has been a surge in NDP popularity.

I have always been a staunch proponent of "informed voting", which means I read party platforms and watch performances in the House of Commons.  I am by NO MEANS a political junkie like some others, but I feel it is all of our responsibilities to make sure we know where the parties stand before we make our decisions.  As I've said in previous posts, this was the first year I have ever even considered reading an NDP platform because this is the first time in history I have ever felt that they may have serious influence in the House (even in an opposition capacity).  Now I don't go into detailed critiques of the platforms, I look for things that stand out both good and bad. But at least I look at what the parties are offering, and base my decision on the plan I feel is best for the Country.

However the same cannot be said for the majority of Canadians, and this is where Democracy #hashtagfails, and this is especially true when it comes to pushing people to vote.

I think it can be generally applied that people don't like attack ads.  How can we make these ads irrelevant? It's simple, make Government a part of your day everyday. Watch CPAC, or read Hansard (however I recommend avoiding Question period, because that is a full hour of attack ads that doesn't really get anything done.)  Spend an hour looking through proposed and passed bills for the day instead of watching TV for that hour.  I mean what could it hurt to give an hour a day for your Country?

When their is an election, read the parties platforms.  Get informed, because voting is about more than just getting out and marking a ballot, and it's more than whether or not you like a candidate or a leader, it's about the future of OUR COUNTRY!!! 

Get serious, and GET INFORMED! And then go vote!

Conservative Platform.
Liberal Platform.
NDP platform.

Bob

Looks like Jack "John" Layton was aptly named.

Apparently the news of the day is Jack (Whos actual first name is John), was found in a facility reknowned for it's "special" Shiatzu massages. In other words John Layton was found in a Whore house in Toronto Jan 9 1996.

Now aside from the humour I find in how his name turns out to actually be JOHN, and that JOHN was found in a house of ill repute, I really don't see much value in this story.

Sure Jacko was doing something you or I wouldn't, but is anyone in the East really going to care whether "Smilin' Jack" is spending his time with "Ladies of the Eveing" enough for him to lose votes based on principles?  Sadly it is increasingly becoming the case that these thing are no longer looked on as an afront to morality, or even worse they elevate the basest element in society closer to those in authority by stripping away the moral code which should be expected from those in public office, and making them more relatable to the general public.

However I am very interested in not having Johnny Layton anywhere close to the purse strings of Canadian taxpayers, because no matter his moral, his policies will devastate Canada.

Bob

Skimming the NDP platform.

You know I've never actually read an NDP platform before, because I understand their ideologies by watching what they fight for in the House, and the bills they put forward and support.  But with Jack Layton surging into a position that the party has never been in before (possibly the major opposition), I felt it was important to get to know what they want to say about themselves through the party planks.

I've made it to section 4, and that where I am starting to glaze over.  There are 2 reasons for this;
1. by this time it is clear why the NDP have been limited to the position of a "prop up" party, because their platform is like reading a grocery list full of treats a child has made, while the parent is struggling to balance the chequebook. It is filled with promises and goals that are simply and clearly unattainable without severe debt increases, as well as tax increases (because neither alone can sustain the planks.)
2. section 4 is their "environmental" section, and it irritates and aggrevates me that they are still considering bunk climate change sciences as a basis for their ideology.

I'm not saying the NDP don't have some admirable ideas, and some that I would like to see worked in.  But even they recognize the need for the caveat "if finances permit" in one of there items, which makes me wonder how many more will come off the table when they realize Canada can't afford everything they are promising?

Up till now we haven't had to take Jack seriously because his party was held in check by the adults at the table, but due to the devestating effect Count Iggy has had on the Liberal party, it's time to start taking the NDP seriously and evaluating their platforms and ideologies with the same criteria we would use on a party that has Governed.  In my estimation the NDP are offering promises of increase to everything and everybody, and at best this can be seen as disengenuous, at worst it could be financially catastrophic for Canada.

Bob

PM Jack Layton?

So here's a query for you. If you don't have enough seats to even attempt to form the initial Government after May 2nd, what should it matter if your party has the next number?

Consider this; Let's sat the next election sees the Conservatives fail to gain a majority of the seats in the House. Also let's say there is a plan for the other parties to form some sort of cooperative/coalition effort after they vote non confidence at the earliest opportunity. The question is who would lead it?

I mean even if the Liberals get the next largest amount of seats, what does that really matter if you plan to work with the other parties to form a Government?  And now with Jack Layton gaining in polls, and more popular in general than Michael Ignatieff (who suffers from what I call "IckyIggyitis", because he creeps me out), who is to say that Jack shouldn't run the Cooperative/Coalition Government?

Since the Westminster form of Parlaiment we use allows for this, what does it really matter how many seats you have as long as you can "cooperate" with enough others to "form Government"? And it may come down to something like this, because it's not about you and I right now, and that is obvious by the Opposition parties who knew the Conservatives would at least get a minority again, this is a classic political grab for power (which I think will only benefit the Bloc I might add.)

So I have to wonder; Will Jack stick his hat into the arena for PM if it comes to a coalition?  Or will we willingly go along with Iggy as their glorious leader?  Honestly I don't see why Jack wouldn't premise his parties conditional support on this, especially after all his big talk about running for that job alone in his ads and speeches. 

Could be very interesting.

Bob

I wonder how the MSM missed this for 2 and 1/2 years?

H/T ALBERTA ARDVARK for getting this out there.

"October 14th 2008: Canada holds a federal election resulting in a conservative minority government.

November 19th 2008: The Speech from the Throne.

November 27th 2008: The Government releases its economic update

November 29th 2008: The NDP hold a conference call telling their MPs about the secret coalition talks with the Liberals and Bloc."

NDP Coalition conference call 1;






NDP Coalition conference call 2;

  





Bob

You know what I don't get?

Michael Ignatieff has been going on for weeks about the PM's lack of respect for democracy.  Well is it not true that Ignatieff himself was appointed as leader of the Liberals, without having to go through a leadership race? Isn't the democratic process onme where you are voted into your position, even within the party system? Strike one.

After waffling on the possibility of a coalition right out of the gate on day one, and then on day two came out and firmly stated there would be no coalition? And now the word is; "If the Governor General wants to call on other parties, or myself, for example, to try and form a government, then we try to form a government," Ignatieff told CBC's Peter Mansbridge, in which the only way to achieve such is a coalition (which it should again be noted is still in effect until June 2011.)  Isn't democracy where you work with the party that gets more votes than you, rather than political manipulation of the Parlaimenary system to usurp power? (Which is evidenced by Ignatieff already clearly stating that they will not support a minority Conservative Government's budget, even before the election has concluded?)

If it's a matter of trust, like Ignatieff keeps saying, I think the obvious loser in that morality would be Ignatieff himself.

Bob

Need I say more?

Find the "Crux of the matter's" view HERE.
And you can see Ignatieff's interview with Peter Mansbridge HERE. So you can decide for yourself.

Bob

Update; New graphic.

Looks like the issue was kept alive long enough to bring out the truth, which means for all Ignatieff's blustering about trust comes back to bite him. THE NATIONAL POST.

Bob

Votemobs.

I don't get them.

First off everyone understands "Mob mentality" has never been associated as a "force for good", on the contrary it has been the cause of heinous, unlawful acts, as well as defining typically anti social and unacceptable behaviour.  Even within a "flashmob" you see that although non destructive, the mentality remains the same, where all individuals give over their free will and thoughts to comply with the group. And while flashmobs may be fun and entertaining, how could it be deemed an acceptable way to vote?

I also wonder why all the hype.  Most voters feel satisfied by doing their civic duty election day and casting their ballot, so is this some type of attention getter that says "look at me I'm special cause I vote?" Ok great you voted, now did you do your research into who you voted for and decide who best represented your views and ideologies, or did you just cast a ballot like the rest of the lemmings in the mob?

Let's call these what they are, rallies, hell even protests, but lets drop the pretense of some sort of new democratic institution.

Universities aren't teaching our children how to think anymore, but obviously they are being well taught how to follow.

Votemobs promo; For those who need peer validation to do their civic duty, and now they are 100% responsibility free because the thinking is done for you! Join today for $0!!
All you have to give up is your morals and freedom of thought.

Bob

Letter to the Chief Electoral Officer.

Please send your letter to the chief electoral officer at the link below;
Chief Electoral Officer

Here is what I wrote.

Dear sir/madame,
I take affront to the "special ballot" polling done in Guelph Ontario, and the way in which it was conducted.  When existing guidelines are set aside for the sake of garnering votes it must be taken as suspect, and the ballots invalidated. Any such eggregious infractions to the existing set of operating procedures must not only be looked at, but also be acted upon.

We are not talking about people unable to vote by physical limitation, or abroad serving our Country, these are young people fully capable of reaching a polling station on May 2nd just as I will. If this special ballot was not given the proper notification for all parties, and conducted in the STRICTEST of manners, the votes obtained are not only suspect, but invalid.

I recommend that you take action to invalidate this farce of a "special ballot", and that you urge the students to vote at their appropriate polling station at the advanced polls, or on May 2nd.

Sincerely,
Bob

My problem with the youth vote.

Is twofold.

1. Lack of experience/knowledge.
2. Emotion based rather than thought through.

Therein lies the rub; we want students and young adults to be engaged it politics, then we confuse them with capmpaigns and slogans that are inappropriate. (Except for this shining exception.)

I think we need to have young people get involved earlier, and teach them how to think past the rhetoric to make good decisions based on fact, not hype. After all they are supposed to be the ones that will run the Country in the future.

Bob

In the interest of.....

Ok I usually hold my posts on one subject to, well one. But after reading drivel like this "In light of the focus on youth and student electoral participation at the 41 st general election, and on efforts to increase voter interest and turnout among this group" from Elections Canada, it gets my hackles up. (Full article from David Aikin.)

Ok first off; WHY AREN'T STUDENTS BEING TAUGHT the importance of voting in a democracy, rather than getting them "interested"?  This is a HUGE #hastagfail on the part of our educational system. Students need to be taught democracy, and their important role in it, and unfortunately in University you are getting partisan politics, rather than a solid base in democracy.

Secondly there should be ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for any able bodied, non military (serving abroad), Canadian not to attend a public polling station in the riding they reside on election day!  There are special ballots for the needs of people for them, but this is simply pandering to the lowest common denominator called laziness. If that's the case let's have a special ballot for everyone right in their own home, especially when the weather is crappy!!  What does it show you think of democracy when you can even put in the effort to get to the polling station on Election day, after all you only had 37 days to plan for it!!!

We had parents and Grand parents that went to war to fight for our democracy, I think those who are able can get off their sorry asses and drag them to the polls May 2nd to vote rather than having to have voting "catered" to them.

Bob

Friday's musings.

Three stories that caught my attention today;

1. The Votemob "special ballot" in Guelph On.  Now this probably would have slipped by me un-noticed, were it not for Iggy's rant on how the PM is trying to "Disenfranchise Guelpg students". The Story is pretty simple, a "votemob" was set up, there was the pretense of a "Special Ballot", Elections Canada guidelines where neglected, and the Conservatives called Elections Canada (and the students) to task for it.  (Article here.) This enraged the Liberal leader. Why you ask? Maybe because he now can't count on duplicate votes by hyper partisan University students maybe? I don't know, but it seems pretty fishy when the rules aren't followed to the letter, and then you get mad when you lose any benefit you may have gained from it. Just sayin'.
The way the ball bounces take on "special ballots"
The letter from the CPC lawyer to Elections Canada
Small dead animals has some interesting info of previously squashe "improper special ballots"
Waking up on planet X gives us the Guelph exam dates

2. And attack at a Liberal activist rally on a girl wearing blue. This again would have probably passed my radar as just another example of "stupid human" behaviour, until some moron on twitter says it was "probably staged".  The problem here is twofold; 1. assault should be unacceptable, period. 2. spinning this sort of thing to try and deflect blame or make it less is simply wrong.  I accept that these things happens, but I neither condone, agree, or even try to explain away this type of behaviour.

3. Voting Liberal. The more I watch how things are playing out, the more I see that if at all possible the Liberals will try to usurp power, leaving the whole Country at the mercy of both the NDP and the Bloc, which to me is completely unacceptable.
National Post article
Toronto Sun - Charles Adler article

Bob

Debates? Democracy doesn't mean bickering.

I watched both the English and the French televised "debates", and the one thing sorely missing was any real debating.
There was a ton of campaign rhetoric soundbites, some complaining, some whining, a LOT of blustering and accusing, and granted even some witty jabs that imparted actual information. Then there was the Prime Minister; Calm, cool, collected, as well as being matter of fact, and statesmanlike. The only reason not to listen to him after the way he presented himself, is because you've already shut off your brain.

I read this on Joanne's blog "Blue like you"; "Even those who hate Stephen Harper are going to have a tough time selling Michael Ignatieff as a competent alternative to our present Prime Minister."  And that is essentially how the debate summed up for me too.

Bob

Leader Debate, April 12, 2011

One of the most popular moments in the 2011 Leaders debate.  I know this one is going to be posted everywhere, but it is one of those defining moments for a party or it's leader.

Enjoy!



Bob

Is it only me?

I have to wonder how it was that the villainous Prime Minister Harper managed to impose his will on Election Canada forcing them to only have Advance polling on easter weekend!! HOW DASTARDLY!!  Or wait, maybe the dates are set by a predetermined strategy set up to allow proper timing within an election time frame?

So when I saw the inane ramblings of my local NDP MP candidate Brian Sklar in this tweet;

I decided to look up advanced polling at the "Elections Canada" website (Which is pretty easy Brian, you should try it before you say something ridiculous like this.)  And the site said this;

And I guess this is the type of thing that bothers me most about the NDP in general, because they are basically an inconsequential party, they can make ridiculous statements and grandiose promises without ever having to worry about the ramifications. And what's worse is the lemmings that chime in and blindly follow along with them.

Time to lose the Block and the NDP (without mentioning the also inconsequential Greens), and get back to the business of running our Country!

Bob

An interview with the Prime Minister.

Wow! Thank you Jeff Allan for asking excellent questions! I love the lack of sensationalism that often overwhelms an interview, and distracts from actual issues!

I encourage everyone to watch this interview:  The Jeff Allan show, April 8, 2011.

Bob

Liberals in the media no different.

As I watch a lot of Liberals "jockey" for some sort of viable position to argue their political leaning, I've been noticing that there are 2 major groups that they tend to fall into (especially when confronted with adequate and intelligent conflicting information.)

1. The Liberal Liner.

These are the party supporters that support without thinking, and when confronted the simple quote back Liberal points handed down from through the "Red Door". They have a hard time dealing with actual debate about an issue, and shut down when their preconceptions are challenged by repeating Liberal "Matras".

2. The Liberal Elitist.

These are the individuals that think they are actually smarter than you because they are Liberal, and to question that makes you even more dumb.  These types often get outraged a the most insignificant of infractions, and blow it into something they really never were. 

(For example; Oda-gate, Bubble-gate, facebook-gate, contempt of Parliament-gate..)

The unifying characteristic of both of these groups, however different, is that often they both often end up name calling, throwing slurs, and trying to bully the opponent into believing that Liberals are somehow morally superior, and therefore should never be questioned.

My problem with that; I question even the party I vote for, so why on earth wouldn't I question one that makes no sense to me?  I guess if someone wanted to convert me to their party's leanings they will actually have to have sensible policy, because this way doesn't work and I thought we left these tactics back in grade school.

This was the "Journalists" article that inspired this post, which brought more substance and understanding of the attacks (that even I have been subject to). And here are the responses by those attacked are here, Ezra Levant, and Brian Lilley.

Bob

Warning signs that you are talking to a Liberal.

1. They believe that the Conservative Government was in contempt of Parliament, and bring it up as a reason not to "trust" them. (Noticeably leaving out the "kangaroo court" factor surrounding the ruling.)

2. They believe that Stephen Harper's letter to the Governor General in 2004, and the agreement signed by the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc are the same thing. (Which means they have obviously failed to look at the information themselves.)

3. They spout Liberal talking points rather than actually discuss a topic, and they get especially angry and start throwing out names at you like "Conservitard", "retard", "idiot" when it eventually clicks that they've lost the argument.

4. They think that a majority Government includes an anti Canadian group like the Bloc, to make up 60% of the house.

5. The word "Regime" is used in their vocabulary to describe a democratically elected Government.

6. They are happy with the idea/promise of more social programs during a recession. (Even if they are recycled, and have been promised in 7 previously elections without ever having been fulfilled ie; National Daycare.)

7. Scrapping the F-35 mid contract seems in some way a good idea. (Failing to look at history, therefore repeating it. ie; EH101 Helicopter cancellation.)

8. Higher Corporate taxes won't affect jobs. (John McCallum tends to disagree though.)

9. You're a closet Greeny! (As noted on page 42 - Chapter 3 of the 2011 Liberal "Red Book" where it refers to the debunked science of "Climate Change" to impose regulations based on "science".


More to come..

the Liberal PLAN in Airquotes.

One thing that stood out to me in looking over the Liberal press release about their "Plan" to cut Conservative "Waste", was the acceptance of waste that the plan itself entails.

First off is the "waste" of a job creating, economy boosting Corporate tax rate.  Now I am by absolutely no means an economist, and I don't even play one on TV, but it seems to me that the perfect way to encourage growth is to make it attractive to businesses to start up and stay running.  But I can kind of see how the Liberals see this as "waste", because it means they miss out on being able to spend more.

And then there is the "waste" of equipping our service people with appropriate and reliable aircraft. I even had someone tweet to me that "Ignatieff is in favour of supporting the military from the ground up; ie - the military families. It's about time.", unbelievably I couldn't understand how the necessity to equip our service people with reliable aircraft was seen as not family oriented.  Not to mention the actual waste Canadians would incur with YET ANOTHER Liberal contract cancellation. (I refer to the EH101 cancellation and the 500 Million plus in penalties because of them.) Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Next let's move on to wasting money on "prisons". Really?  I want criminals BEHIND BARS, and I want HARSHER SENTENCES, but I'm only someone who lives in the real world rather than in the back of a limo so what do I know.

How about Election money wastes? Seeing as this election was brought on by the Opposition parties, it seems a little hypocritical to call others wasteful and yet cost the taxpayers 300 million plus on an election. And while we're at it let's trim the fat by eliminating vote subsidies, another waste of taxpayers money.

Then the Liberals have the gall to say "Restore Federal spending discipline", while at the same time offering a continuously recycled "National Daycare" program with no clear way to pat for it except to raise the Corporate tax. And that they will "Cut wasteful spending that has ballooned under the Harper government", while at the same time offering grandiose "family" spending initiatives (to what end one might even ask?)


I think it's time for new blood in the Liberal hierarchy, because the same old "tax and spend" mentality doesn't fly anymore.


Bob

Why doesn't the MSM cover the lies behind the scenes?

Count Iffy posted an open letter challenge to Prime Minister Harper, but when Liberal negotiators "behind the scenes" "Nix" any more one vs one time why is this tidbit not worthy of media attention?  Doesn't it go directly to the credibility of the candidate and his party?

Yet when the PM said "he was following the guidelines set out by the broadcasters" as a refusal for a one on one debating, it was spun in the media to make the PM look like he was backing out.  Could we maybe find some journalistic integrity in the Main Stream Media?  Watch where you get your info, because biases are impossible to avoid, but the MSM could at least TRY to be impartial.

Bob

"Bad governments are elected by good citizens who don't vote". Well, not really.

This morning I woke up to this quote posted any number of times on my twitter stream, and although I am a huge advocate for people to vote, the logic is just lacking.

See this quote assumes that all bad governments will be somehow thwarted by the collective intelligence of the majority of people. However it fails to recognize the political disinterest, or apathy, I find most people have in finding out the truth behind campaign rhetoric or candidate/party History.  And this is what runs counter to the logic of the statement.

I agree that people need to vote, but I go a step further in saying that instead of listening to rhetoric, or even worse like I've heard said "I vote X because that's how I've always voted", they need to do their homework about as much as possible instead of  "Cliché voting".  I feel it is the duty and responsibility of every citizen of a democracy not to "just vote", but to invest themselves into the Democracy they live in, and educate themselves as much as possible to all parties Policies and History, and AFTER doing so, to Vote.

What this quote fails to address, is that bad Governments are elected by ignorant, albeit good, citizens who both vote and don't vote.  Apathy of politics and blindly following rhetoric are the killers of Democracy, not simply the lack of voting.

Bob

The bluster about the "Coalitions".

I have heard several times now the comparison between the Lib, NDP, and Bloc COALITION, and the Conservative merger of political parties into one as being the same.  As gently as I can I call this HOGWASH!! Anyone with an once of sense in their head sees the difference, the Conservatives ran as a party, the Coalition did NOT. So to compare an amalgamated and cohesive party like the CPC to a compilation of parties like the Coalition is simple nonsense, an extremely weak justification for what it really was, which was a power grab or coup to overthrow the government.

That brings me to a second argument I've heard, that the 2004 letter to the GG was a coalition letter.  There is nothing in this letter, or as far as I know the arrangement, that puts Socialists in the Cabinet, and gives the Separatists power to hold it all together (a great term I saw yesterday called this "Bloc-mailing" the Coalition.)  Which is completely contrary to the agreement between the Libs and NDP, and we haven't even heard what he offered Gilles to get his "Confidence"  Hey wait, isn't that almost like influence peddling?  It should be pointed out that in 2004 there was no wrangling "to bring down the Government", but opened an option to avoid another election. 2008 was just the opposite, it was a ploy to take over Government and subvert the election by purchasing confidence of the Coalition members.

So a couple of reasons occurred to me why Duceppe went on after PM Harper yesterday and railed about the 2004 letter;

1. He unequivocally WANTS the Liberals to gain power where they never could.

2. He was mad the the Conservatives didn't offer anything but cooperation in the 2004 letter.

3. He will say ANYTHING to try and gets what he wants.

I think you would be a fool to rule out another coalition if the Conservatives don't gain a Majority, and it will hurt Canadians to have to pay for it.

Check out all the documents and video footage on Hatrock"s cave to compare 2004 to 2008.  It seems that Jack and Gilles have selective memories.

That's what it all looks like to me.

Bob

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I have ALWAYS maintained that I believe the Bloc have NO PLACE in our Federal Government House. Our Parliament is broken, And to fix it we need to oust the Bloc.

The Toronto Sun has a great article on it HERE.

Bob

The "Thought control" on PM Stephen Harper.

You know I FULLY realize the Stephen Harper an the Conservatives are not perfect, but for someone to come onto CPAC and accuse the PM of forcing them what to think.  Really? By saying that you don't want to support him, and you want him to fall hard, wouldn't that be something contrary to what he would make you think (if he had the power)?

It amazes me how people who claim that all Conservative do is spout rhetoric, come up with inane ramblings like this.

Bob

"Iffy's" Statement released for the press March 26-2011

(My comments will be bold/Italic, and fittingly in blue below.   Bob.)

Statement by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff: The rules of our democracy

POSTED ON MARCH 26, 2011

This election is not just an exercise in democracy, it’s about democracy.  So as we begin the campaign, let’s be clear about the rules. (Just announcing "let me make myself perfectly clear" doesn't actually do anything  if you are not going to explain yourself properly, which even the biased MSM has picked up on.)

Whoever leads the party that wins the most seats on election day should be called on to form the government.  (This seems to be in direct conflict of the signed agreement of the Coalition, where the NDP were offered cabinet positions, and the Bloc could pillage the Nation as they held unprecedented power in Government.)

If that is the Liberal Party, then I will be required to rapidly seek the confidence of the newly-elected Parliament.   If our government cannot win the support of the House, then Mr. Harper will be called on to form a government and face the same challenge.  That is our Constitution.  It is the law of the land. (Pounding in the legitimacy of the coalition attempt previously, and at the same time leaving the door open by saying "Well we said they could do it, so why can't we?)

If, as Leader of the Liberal Party, I am given the privilege of forming the government, these are the rules that will guide me:

• We will face Parliament with exactly the same team, platform and agenda that we bring to Canadians during this election.  What Canadians see in this campaign is what Canadians will get if we are asked to form government.
• We will work with ALL parties to make Parliament work, and deliver sound policies – even the Conservative Party in opposition. (Was I the only one who saw good bills go down in flames, simply because the Liberals preferred an election over working with other parties?)
• We will not enter a coalition with other federalist parties.   In our system, coalitions are a legitimate constitutional option.  However, I believe that issue-by-issue collaboration with other parties is the best way for minority Parliaments to function. (where was this belief when the coalition tried to take over Parliament?)
• We categorically rule out a coalition or formal arrangement with the Bloc Quebecois. (We? Who exactly? It can be easily said that Iggy unilaterally decided this, and the rest of the party is not bound by it. Names, please, who all agreed to this?  I would like it in writing too. )
• If I am facing a minority Parliament, I will work like Liberal Prime Ministers Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau and Paul Martin did:  to provide progressive government to our country, by building support issue-by-issue, and by tapping into the goodwill, generosity and common sense of Canadians across the political spectrum.  These are the governments that gave Canada the Canadian Flag, Medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, the Kelowna Accord and a National Daycare Plan.  With the right kind of leadership another minority Parliament could strive for such heights.  (This inflated talk is exactly contrary to what we've seen of the Liberals, and is pure bull manure.)

That is my position.  Now I have a few questions for Mr. Harper:

• Does he agree with how I have described the workings of our democratic system? (Iggy's thinking "So in case I choose to form a coalition anyway he can't argue it's illegitimate or not right somehow.")
• Why does he insist on fabricating lies about an impending coalition, something he knows is false? (How do you call someone a liar that is pointing out historical fact, and making valid  projections of possible impending events?)
• Will he tell Canadians the truth about his secret hotel room meetings in 2004 with the Bloc Quebecois which resulted in a signed letter of agreement to the Governor General, proposing a Conservative-NDP-Bloc coalition?  (Well the letter is out there for everyone to see, as is the Liberal coalition signed document. It was clear to me which of the 2 was more damning.)
• Will he finally acknowledge the unprecedented finding of contempt against his government yesterday in the House of Commons? (I actually find this statement particularly egregious, because the charge of contempt was laid at the feet of the opposition parties, which all chomp at the bit for anything to use against their opponent.)
  

Bob

Iggy "makes it perfectly clear".

After all the blustering, scrambling, and double talk, Michael Ignatieff sent out a press report saying that he would not look to form a coalition. (National post article here) (Liberal Press release here). However it still came across as pretty weak and "ambiguous".

At this point a couple of things do remain very clear;
1. Iggy is just starting to realize that he can basically say anything in a campaign (especially so far behind already), as there is no legal ramifications that would force him to fulfill those promises.
2. He was trying to leave the coalition door open. And technically it still is, because his inevitable replacement has made no such commitment/promise.
3. Both minor parties will gladly jump at the chance to "be in Government", because without a Coalition they are limited to being "fringe" parties, with no real chance to Govern alone.

It would be a grave mistake for voters to believe that a Coalition is dead, and for separatists to hold that much power over OUR Country is abhorrent!

Bob

And the rhetoric begins.

I had an interesting conversation with a Liberal that told me I was "railing" at the coalition (two posts ago).  And as much as I was accused of spouting Conservative rhetoric, he spouted Liberal rhetoric even faster.  However I don't think it turned out the way he wanted, because as usual when Liberals start to lose they turn to name calling and slurs just as this poor fellow did.

One of his main argument was that 60% (nicely fudged round up, it's actually 53%) of Canadians didn't vote for Conservative. And even while it's true that a majority of Canadians at 53% DID NOT vote Conservative, in the same respect let's look at the numbers that didn't vote for the other parties.

March 2011 House at dissolution

1. 75% of Canadians DID NOT vote LIBERAL.
2. 89% of Canadians DID NOT vote NDP.
3. 85% of Canadians DID NOT vote Bloc.
4. 100% of Canadians DID NOT vote COALITION!

So by the same equation he use to defend the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition, it actually works out worse for the Opposition parties.  But for Canadians in general it's more about tradition than the "legality" of a "Coalition", where traditionally we expect that the winner of the most seats in the House of Commons will be the party that Governs.

As I maintained throughout. if "The Coalition" wants to prove that they have 60% of Canadians support, let them run together under a Coalition Banner and prove that they can make a legitimate Government.

Bob

A letter to the Governor General Sept 2004.

Here is the text from the Letter sent to the Governor General by the leaders of the Opposition parties in 2004.  I'm betting it looks a lot different without any biased media spin on it, which is why you will not find my opinion on it posted here at all.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 9, 2004

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,

C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.

Governor General

Rideau Hall

1 Sussex Drive

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1

Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.

Leader of the Opposition

Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe, M.P.

Leader of the Bloc Quebecois

Jack Layton, M.P.

Leader of the New Democratic Party

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob

Could be a fun election on twitter.

I'm a social media type guy, and I post and retweet things on Twitter.  Today I posted a quote from an article (with the link), and a lefty posts to me that I "rails agains a coalition when the CPoC is a coalition of the PCs and Reform formed upon McKay's broken promises. Hypocrites".

I find this funny for 2 reasons;

1. I wasn't railing, just pointing followers to an article (not that I don't or won't rail about the "coalition monkey", but in this instance I wasn't)

2. The reform/PCoC are now one party, and if the Liberals, NDP and Bloc wish to be a coalition then run as such (after all they already have the name "Coalition Monkey Party"), I have no problem with them forming the Government if they win!

Check out the twitter feed.

Kind of funny if you ask me. ;-) 

Bob

Iggy's Regime change ideas.

If the Conservatives happen to only get another Minority Government, you can pretty much guarantee the revival of "The Coalition".  Michael Ignatieff said as much by his blatant avoidance of the question from the media, and his sudden exit (he "fled") from the scrum. The full article HERE.

But he is determined on twitter to follow through. Check it out.

This is definitely his prerogative, but what was the straw that broke the camels back after a year of redrawing his line in the sand? The Harper Government finally had a semi-credible scandal involving possible influence peddling.  But what did the PM do? He called the police on the party alleged of it! Scandal dead.

Bob

"The most vulnerable in society".

One thing that really ticks me off is how Liberals are always INAPPROPRIATELY throwing out the phrase "the most vulnerable in society" for every group they think is not being adequately represented. (Scott Brison & John Mccallum, 10:30 & 10:40am March 24/2011 in the House debate of the budget.)

STOP THIS, IT'S RIDICULOUS!!!!  THE POOR ARE NOT THE MOST VULNERABLE! ABORIGINALS ARE NOT THE MOST VULNERABLE! UNBORN CHILDREN ARE THE MOST VULNERABLE!

There is one group that are the most vulnerable in society, and that group is under attack thanks to Liberal values of ABORTION!  If the Liberals had any concern for the TRULY most vulnerable in society, ABORTION WOULD BE ILLEGAL! MURDER IS MURDER, NOT WOMEN'S RIGHTS!

There is NO OTHER HUMAN CONDITION that puts us AT THE COMPLETE AND TOTAL MERCY OF ANOTHER!

How Moronic.

Bob

Here's a kicker when the Opposition parties Say "There is no Coalition" or don't talk about it.

CBC has an article that was updated Dec 1st, 2008, which gives the outline of what and why with the Coalition deal. When looking at the "Details" you find that the Coalition is technically still in place, at least within the Liberals and the NDP.  FULL ARTICLE HERE.

The excerpt on the right hand side of the page, just below the picture of the document you will find;
"Details of the deal

The proposed coalition government includes:

• 24 members of cabinet and Dion as prime minister
• 18 Liberal cabinet ministers (including a yet-to-be-named Liberal finance minister)
• 6 NDP cabinet ministers
• 6 NDP parliamentary secretaries
• The 2 caucuses would sit side by side in the House of Commons
• The agreement between the NDP and Liberals would expire on June 30, 2011, unless renewed. The Bloc is only committed to 18 months."

So make note, when you vote Liberal or NDP, you WILL BE voting for "The Coalition!"

Thanks to Joanne at Blue Like You for pointing this out on Twitter.

Bob

If there is an election..

Even if the Conservatives hoped for it, this will be an election forced by "The Coalition."

However watching Question Period after the March 23rd Conservative budget, I notice that surprisingly enough something is missing.  What's missing is Conservatives "Hedging their bets" in case the Budget actually passes.  What I mean is that the appearance is such that despite all the allegations that they put forward a budget to force an election, it seems that they would honestly rather see the House pass this budget rather than go to an election.

I don't think the Government is entirely happy with the budget, which will happen when you have 2 parties pandering for socialist programs, and the Bloc sitting with their hands out like entitled children. I don't think it would have mattered what was in the budget, because it was already decided (whether collectively or independently) by "The Coalition" that it would be defeated.

There is something we can do about it, stop voting for Fringe parties (NDP and Bloc). That would force the Fringe candidates to choose one of the parties that can actually make a difference.

Bob