Posts
This is exciting. Here's a Liberal lie I can personally vouch for being a lie. The Liberal website accuses "The Blogging Tories" of being a covert Conservative operation in contravention of the rules on election spending:
http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=11418
“They’re trying to make it look like these are individuals rather than a party effort,” Parks, one of the accusers, says.
If The Blogging Tories is a party effort, it's sure news to me, as one of the earlier Blogging Tories. I've never been approached by anyone from the Conservative Party. I am not a member of the Conservative Party. When I joined the web ring, no such questions were asked. And I can guarantee you nobody's ever given me money.
Sure makes me want to become a member of the Conservative Party, though. These Martin Liberals must be stopped.
*****
Love these new poll numbers. I wonder if they stand scrutiny. CTV and Strategic Council posted them, then withdrew them, then posted them again: Jan 14-16 CP 42% Lib 24% NDP 17% BQ 12% Greens 5%.
Warren Kinsella writes that a US reporter asked him about the wisdom of “A sitting Prime Minister personally approving an ad that defames a sitting president, with whom he would presumably need to work, after an election."
Kinsella responds, "That's a Prime Minister who is returning to the private sector. He knew it was all over when he approved those ads. They were designed to protect what few ridings he had left, not expand his base."
Say--do you suppose they're paying Kinsella?
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Rumblings of a Landslide
The NDP’s current strategy of appealing to Liberal voters may or may not be working, but it seems pretty smart to me. Attack ads work best in a two-party race; because they slime the accuser as well as the target. All very well if the voters have nowhere else to go; but look what happened to Howard Dean and Richard Gephart in Iowa a couple of years ago. They blew each other away, handing it to Kerry and Edwards, who stayed out of the mud.
By appealing to disaffected Liberals, among other factors, Layton can reap the advantages of the Liberal attack ads without being blamed for them.
Negative advertising, after all, gives no reason to vote for you.
Ipsos' seat projection model suggests that if a vote were held tomorrow, the Tories would take 149-153 seats; the Liberals 64-68; the NDP 29-33; and the Bloc 57-61. Note how close the BQ is to the Liberals. If present trends continue up to voting day, they could supplant the Libs as Official Opposition.
Hill & Knowlton thinks the BQ would surpass the Liberal even now, with 61 seats to 49 (!). They also show the NDP up to 41 seats, more than doubling their caucus, and Tories with a bare majority of 156. Nothing could be better for the Tories: a majority plus a split opposition. The NDP and Liberals might even duke it out for who ends up as the more credible alternative government next time. It could be the mirror image of the Reform-Tory struggle.
But I doubt those projections are right.
Decima shows the Tories now at 28%, the Liberals down to 14%, in Quebes. Fourteen percent. That’s NDP territory.
Andrew Coyne points out this from a recent Ipsos-Reid poll: “Those who have immigrated to Canada most strongly support the Conservatives (38%) over the Liberals (35%) and the NDP (19%).” Coyne suggests a fundamental political realignment is taking place: immigrants are moving to the Conservatives
By appealing to disaffected Liberals, among other factors, Layton can reap the advantages of the Liberal attack ads without being blamed for them.
Negative advertising, after all, gives no reason to vote for you.
Ipsos' seat projection model suggests that if a vote were held tomorrow, the Tories would take 149-153 seats; the Liberals 64-68; the NDP 29-33; and the Bloc 57-61. Note how close the BQ is to the Liberals. If present trends continue up to voting day, they could supplant the Libs as Official Opposition.
Hill & Knowlton thinks the BQ would surpass the Liberal even now, with 61 seats to 49 (!). They also show the NDP up to 41 seats, more than doubling their caucus, and Tories with a bare majority of 156. Nothing could be better for the Tories: a majority plus a split opposition. The NDP and Liberals might even duke it out for who ends up as the more credible alternative government next time. It could be the mirror image of the Reform-Tory struggle.
But I doubt those projections are right.
Decima shows the Tories now at 28%, the Liberals down to 14%, in Quebes. Fourteen percent. That’s NDP territory.
Andrew Coyne points out this from a recent Ipsos-Reid poll: “Those who have immigrated to Canada most strongly support the Conservatives (38%) over the Liberals (35%) and the NDP (19%).” Coyne suggests a fundamental political realignment is taking place: immigrants are moving to the Conservatives
Monday, January 16, 2006
Canadian Values
In the end, perhaps Martin’s Liberals are in trouble because, despite their claims to be its defenders, they are out of step with Canadian values.
Canadians believe strongly in honesty and in following the rules: there’s the famous claim that Torontonians will wait for the lights to change before crossing the street even at 3 am. Martin and his Liberals have set a tone of corruption and deceit.
Canadians believe in politeness, fair play, and treating even opponents with respect. There are no cries to “kill the ref” at a hockey game. Martin’s hardball in winning the Liberal leadership, in fearmongering against the Conservatives, and in America-bashing, violates that tradition.
Canadians believe in community and in cooperation. They are respectful of authority to a fault. The country was founded on the concept of loyalty. Martin’s rebellion against his own leader, regardless of what we think of Chretien, does not jibe with that. Martin looks as if he has put personal ambition above loyalty to either leader or to party. That is not what Canadians do. Belinda Stronach, and Martin’s welcoming her into cabinet, has reinforced the image.
In the last few days, Harper has been concentrating on Southern Ontario, where he hopes for new seats. Martin has been concentrating on Montreal, where the Liberals have traditionally been safe. Why?
Could it be that the BQ is right? That Martin is in danger in his own seat? And it has become, or has remained, for Martin, every man for himself?
The latest Strategic Council poll shows the Conservatives now in a statistical tie with the Liberals even in Montreal and Toronto. The last remaining Liberal bastions.
“Paul Martin's campaign is worse than a disaster. It's now actually really, really sad. Let's just vote and get this over with, I say. Martin's self-immolation is getting hard to watch.”
-- Warren Kinsella.
Canadians believe strongly in honesty and in following the rules: there’s the famous claim that Torontonians will wait for the lights to change before crossing the street even at 3 am. Martin and his Liberals have set a tone of corruption and deceit.
Canadians believe in politeness, fair play, and treating even opponents with respect. There are no cries to “kill the ref” at a hockey game. Martin’s hardball in winning the Liberal leadership, in fearmongering against the Conservatives, and in America-bashing, violates that tradition.
Canadians believe in community and in cooperation. They are respectful of authority to a fault. The country was founded on the concept of loyalty. Martin’s rebellion against his own leader, regardless of what we think of Chretien, does not jibe with that. Martin looks as if he has put personal ambition above loyalty to either leader or to party. That is not what Canadians do. Belinda Stronach, and Martin’s welcoming her into cabinet, has reinforced the image.
In the last few days, Harper has been concentrating on Southern Ontario, where he hopes for new seats. Martin has been concentrating on Montreal, where the Liberals have traditionally been safe. Why?
Could it be that the BQ is right? That Martin is in danger in his own seat? And it has become, or has remained, for Martin, every man for himself?
The latest Strategic Council poll shows the Conservatives now in a statistical tie with the Liberals even in Montreal and Toronto. The last remaining Liberal bastions.
“Paul Martin's campaign is worse than a disaster. It's now actually really, really sad. Let's just vote and get this over with, I say. Martin's self-immolation is getting hard to watch.”
-- Warren Kinsella.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Martin Announces His Support of Peace and Democracy
"It is impossible to be prime minister and not feel tremendous pride when travelling across the world and seeing the extent to which Canada is respected and envied by every country in the world," Paul Martin said at Concordia University today. "Whether it's in Haiti, Afghanistan or Darfur, Canada is there to promote peace and democracy."
As a Canadian living outside the country, I have to gag. Canada’s international reputation has been in freefall over the last few years. Canada is no longer a significant presence in the UN’s peacekeeping operations. Starving the military for funding has its effects. Canada is no longer a significant ally of the US, its traditional role as the world’s honest broker with the US taken over by the UK and Australia. Canada no longer counts. Canada is there no longer.
And respect for Canada seems very much in decline: Koreans and Irishmen have asked me why Canadians are so off the beam and bratty any more about the US. Americans, Koreans, and Irishmen have complained to me about Canadians being excessively chauvinistic and nationalistic, just as we accuse Americans of being. And the Liberal government is earning a fine international reputation for corruption, where the Canadian image used to be pure boy scout, pure Dudley Doright. Naïve, perhaps, but honest to the marrow.
As a Canadian living abroad, I can’t say what a relief the thought of a new government is. It will mean being able to be proud once again to admit I’m Canadian. I can’t say how happy I will be to have Stephen Harper as the face of Canada abroad, instead of Jean Chretien or Paul Martin.
He even looks like a Mountie.
The Globe & Mail has just endorsed the Conservatives.
Andrew Coyne theorizes that the Conservatives are winning this election largely because they have won over the media. And they have won over the media by feeding them good copy over the first few weeks of the campaign, with their policy-announcement-a-day approach.
Ipsos Reid shows the Conservatives leading now even in the Maritimes and NL. According to them, Liberals have dropped _16 points_ in less than a week in that region. The NDP is also surging there. I suspect a polling error; we’ll see if this is confirmed by others. Atlantic Canada does not tend to shift ground that fast. IR is the only poll still showing the Liberals leading the Tories in Quebec, as well.
SES now also shows a Conservative lead in Atlantic Canada, though slight.
One cynical thought: Atlantic Canada may want to elect members on the winning side, for the sake of keeping patronage flowing. Patronage, sadly, is big in Atlantic Canada.
Layton and the NDP, following their own strategy, are turning their guns on the Liberals. Their priority, no doubt, is to discourage followers from voting Liberal instead of NDP to block the Conservatives. And the strategy makes good sense. But, aside from helping the NDP, this will help the Conservatives.
As a Canadian living outside the country, I have to gag. Canada’s international reputation has been in freefall over the last few years. Canada is no longer a significant presence in the UN’s peacekeeping operations. Starving the military for funding has its effects. Canada is no longer a significant ally of the US, its traditional role as the world’s honest broker with the US taken over by the UK and Australia. Canada no longer counts. Canada is there no longer.
And respect for Canada seems very much in decline: Koreans and Irishmen have asked me why Canadians are so off the beam and bratty any more about the US. Americans, Koreans, and Irishmen have complained to me about Canadians being excessively chauvinistic and nationalistic, just as we accuse Americans of being. And the Liberal government is earning a fine international reputation for corruption, where the Canadian image used to be pure boy scout, pure Dudley Doright. Naïve, perhaps, but honest to the marrow.
As a Canadian living abroad, I can’t say what a relief the thought of a new government is. It will mean being able to be proud once again to admit I’m Canadian. I can’t say how happy I will be to have Stephen Harper as the face of Canada abroad, instead of Jean Chretien or Paul Martin.
He even looks like a Mountie.
The Globe & Mail has just endorsed the Conservatives.
Andrew Coyne theorizes that the Conservatives are winning this election largely because they have won over the media. And they have won over the media by feeding them good copy over the first few weeks of the campaign, with their policy-announcement-a-day approach.
Ipsos Reid shows the Conservatives leading now even in the Maritimes and NL. According to them, Liberals have dropped _16 points_ in less than a week in that region. The NDP is also surging there. I suspect a polling error; we’ll see if this is confirmed by others. Atlantic Canada does not tend to shift ground that fast. IR is the only poll still showing the Liberals leading the Tories in Quebec, as well.
SES now also shows a Conservative lead in Atlantic Canada, though slight.
One cynical thought: Atlantic Canada may want to elect members on the winning side, for the sake of keeping patronage flowing. Patronage, sadly, is big in Atlantic Canada.
Layton and the NDP, following their own strategy, are turning their guns on the Liberals. Their priority, no doubt, is to discourage followers from voting Liberal instead of NDP to block the Conservatives. And the strategy makes good sense. But, aside from helping the NDP, this will help the Conservatives.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Drumbeats of Doom
“... rigor mortis is setting in for the disastrous Ditheral campaign” - Warren Kinsella.
Stephen Harper should, by the way, if he gets a majority government, quickly appoint Kinsella to the Senate, or better yet, to a diplomatic post, perhaps in Burkina Faso. He is a very dangerous guy to have working for the other side.
Andrew Coyne is featuring a photo of the Hindenburg going up in flames.
Bourque is using a picture of the Titanic.
Harper is now more trusted in Quebec than either Martin or Duceppe.
Michael Wilson, founder of the GST, has publicly endorsed Harper’s plan to cut it.
Herb Dhaliwal has said publicly Martin will have to resign as leader if the Conservatives win.
Rumour says advance polls claim a higher then usual turnout. This is usually bad news for an incumbent party.
Mind, Conservative support is not growing over the past day or two as quickly as it had been. SES’s polling suggests this may be due to a move of NDP support to the Liberals. The other possibility is that the Liberal attack ads, even though they flopped with the press, are having some effect on the public.
If the latter, though, I expect a bounce-back once the press reaction sinks in; and this should still be well before voting day.
Stephen Harper should, by the way, if he gets a majority government, quickly appoint Kinsella to the Senate, or better yet, to a diplomatic post, perhaps in Burkina Faso. He is a very dangerous guy to have working for the other side.
Andrew Coyne is featuring a photo of the Hindenburg going up in flames.
Bourque is using a picture of the Titanic.
Harper is now more trusted in Quebec than either Martin or Duceppe.
Michael Wilson, founder of the GST, has publicly endorsed Harper’s plan to cut it.
Herb Dhaliwal has said publicly Martin will have to resign as leader if the Conservatives win.
Rumour says advance polls claim a higher then usual turnout. This is usually bad news for an incumbent party.
Mind, Conservative support is not growing over the past day or two as quickly as it had been. SES’s polling suggests this may be due to a move of NDP support to the Liberals. The other possibility is that the Liberal attack ads, even though they flopped with the press, are having some effect on the public.
If the latter, though, I expect a bounce-back once the press reaction sinks in; and this should still be well before voting day.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Liberal Vital Signs Ebb
Stephen Harper did absolutely the right thing in dropping Tory candidate Derek Zeisman, and dropping him fast. In the midst of Liberal corruption, the Conservatives must set an example.
Mario Dumont has now endorsed the Conservatives. This is significant. He and ADQ are their natural ideological partners and they have an organization on the ground in Quebec.
From a Reuters story:
Senior Liberals privately admit the party stands virtually no chance of beating the Conservatives of Stephen Harper….
"We're done," confided a prominent Liberal legislator. "It's all over," said one well-placed official. Some fret they could be out of power for up to a decade.
"…. Defeat on January 23 is pretty much taken for granted," said one person with access to the top ranks of the party.
…"The campaign is in a bizarre state ... There's no policy they won't change overnight if a focus group says it's not popular," said one senior Liberal. "This has been a lousy government and frankly they deserve to lose."
It’s getting to be scandal du jour for the Liberals, now that the press has the scent. Cabinet Minister Tony Valeri flipped a house to a prominent Liberal supporter for more than double the price after three months. That smells pretty funny.
There is just no way the Liberals are coming back from this one by January 23.
Mario Dumont has now endorsed the Conservatives. This is significant. He and ADQ are their natural ideological partners and they have an organization on the ground in Quebec.
From a Reuters story:
Senior Liberals privately admit the party stands virtually no chance of beating the Conservatives of Stephen Harper….
"We're done," confided a prominent Liberal legislator. "It's all over," said one well-placed official. Some fret they could be out of power for up to a decade.
"…. Defeat on January 23 is pretty much taken for granted," said one person with access to the top ranks of the party.
…"The campaign is in a bizarre state ... There's no policy they won't change overnight if a focus group says it's not popular," said one senior Liberal. "This has been a lousy government and frankly they deserve to lose."
It’s getting to be scandal du jour for the Liberals, now that the press has the scent. Cabinet Minister Tony Valeri flipped a house to a prominent Liberal supporter for more than double the price after three months. That smells pretty funny.
There is just no way the Liberals are coming back from this one by January 23.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Liberal Death Watch
Looks like the Liberals have already lost their chance at stirring up a fear campaign against the Conservatives. Thtat was heir last chance, by me, barring a miracle. Thanks to that leaked commercial about Harper stationing soldiers in cities, and their already shaky credibility, their mudslinging ads look like they are fast becoming a laughingstock.
That’s the death rattle. When they start laughing at you, you know it’s over.
As noted, the tipping point came when the Conservatives surpassed the Liberals in the Quebec polls. At this point, both Liberal and BQ votes should start flocking to the Tories in Quebec, as most Quebecers oppose both separatism and corruption. This will make Ontarians a whole lot more comfortable with the Tories as well, knowing voting Tory will not alienate Quebec.
This is exactly the dynamic that gave Diefenbaker and Mulroney their landslides.
That’s the death rattle. When they start laughing at you, you know it’s over.
As noted, the tipping point came when the Conservatives surpassed the Liberals in the Quebec polls. At this point, both Liberal and BQ votes should start flocking to the Tories in Quebec, as most Quebecers oppose both separatism and corruption. This will make Ontarians a whole lot more comfortable with the Tories as well, knowing voting Tory will not alienate Quebec.
This is exactly the dynamic that gave Diefenbaker and Mulroney their landslides.
Downfall. No, Not Martin's. Hitler's.
Saw “Downfall,” the German movie about Hitler’s last days in the bunker at the end of WWII. Controversial because considered by some too sympathetic to Hitler.
Certainly made me think. Told from the perspective of Hitler’s secretary, who was in the bunker, it naturally made you sympathetic to the people in that difficult spot. You had to remind yourself that they deserved everything they got. The film, rather clumsily, did its bit with a postscript interview that spoke of the fate of the Jews.
Hitler also came off as admirable for his personal courage, and for his intellectual consistency. His basic views did not seem to waver in defeat, nor when they seemed to go against his own interests. He believed in survival of the fittest. He and Germany had lost the war. Very well, then he and Germany deserved death, and he was not going to quibble about it now. The point is made that he could have escaped death at least temporarily, by fleeing Berlin for his prepared fortress in the Bavarian Alps. But he refused. As captain, he insisted on going down with the ship. “He must be on stage for the final curtain,” as Speer put it.
One of my Arab students pointed this out as a contrast between Saddam and Hitler, to Saddam’s detriment. His end was, by comparison, without dignity. Having demanded that many die for him, he was not sanguine about facing death himself. He cut and ran. So did Mussolini. Hitler stood his ground and would not retreat, just as he demanded of others.
Other Nazis were also shown as heroic: Eva Braun, the Goebbelses, some SS officers, the general running the defense of Berlin, Albert Speer, and some Hitler youth.
This should not surprise us, and surely was genuine. It is only fair to show it. If it did not represent some apparent good, how could Nazism have earned the allegiance of so many for so long? All evil is only a relative absence of good; only the putting of a lesser good above a greater. Fortitude above compassion, for example. Only moral relativism finds this confusing.
Certainly made me think. Told from the perspective of Hitler’s secretary, who was in the bunker, it naturally made you sympathetic to the people in that difficult spot. You had to remind yourself that they deserved everything they got. The film, rather clumsily, did its bit with a postscript interview that spoke of the fate of the Jews.
Hitler also came off as admirable for his personal courage, and for his intellectual consistency. His basic views did not seem to waver in defeat, nor when they seemed to go against his own interests. He believed in survival of the fittest. He and Germany had lost the war. Very well, then he and Germany deserved death, and he was not going to quibble about it now. The point is made that he could have escaped death at least temporarily, by fleeing Berlin for his prepared fortress in the Bavarian Alps. But he refused. As captain, he insisted on going down with the ship. “He must be on stage for the final curtain,” as Speer put it.
One of my Arab students pointed this out as a contrast between Saddam and Hitler, to Saddam’s detriment. His end was, by comparison, without dignity. Having demanded that many die for him, he was not sanguine about facing death himself. He cut and ran. So did Mussolini. Hitler stood his ground and would not retreat, just as he demanded of others.
Other Nazis were also shown as heroic: Eva Braun, the Goebbelses, some SS officers, the general running the defense of Berlin, Albert Speer, and some Hitler youth.
This should not surprise us, and surely was genuine. It is only fair to show it. If it did not represent some apparent good, how could Nazism have earned the allegiance of so many for so long? All evil is only a relative absence of good; only the putting of a lesser good above a greater. Fortitude above compassion, for example. Only moral relativism finds this confusing.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Late Thoughts on the English Debate
Reviews of the English-language debate are beginning to come in, and to suggest it too involved a self-inflicted TKO on Paul Martin. The reaction to the idea of amending the constitution to remove the "notwithstanding clause" for the federal government does not look good so far. Sounds reckless, a constitutional "roll of the dice," of the sort that so damaged Brian Mulroney.
I missed this first time around. But I can see how it may not look good to many to reopen the whole constitutional can-o'-worms again.
Martin may have handed Harper the national unity card yet again.
The other thing that seems to be resonating is Harper's closing comment about not being good on passion or spin. People seem to have liked that. May have closed the deal on Harper being prime ministerial.
I missed this first time around. But I can see how it may not look good to many to reopen the whole constitutional can-o'-worms again.
Martin may have handed Harper the national unity card yet again.
The other thing that seems to be resonating is Harper's closing comment about not being good on passion or spin. People seem to have liked that. May have closed the deal on Harper being prime ministerial.
Conservative Majority in Sight
Chances for Martin and the Liberals are dimming. Their best chance to stop the Conservative momentum came and went with the final English-language debate. They needed a knockout there, and they didn't get it. Their next best chance--and a real one--was the French-language debate. If they could stop Harper's momentum in Quebec, they could stop it in Ontario too. It is hard to judge without seeing it, here in the Middle East, but I gather the knockout, if knockout there was, landed instead on Paul Martin. He seems at one point to confuse Stephen Harper with Jack Layton. That makes him seem old and tired, and boosts the
"time for a change" argument. Both Layton and Harper also accused him, plausibly, of falsifying their platforms. This may hurt him on credibility and honesty, which is the main issue in Quebec.
The last Liberal chance is a full-blown smear campaign in their late TV ads. That has now begun. Harper is criticized, among other odd things, for his supposed links to a so-called "secret, ultra right-wing American think-tank." Shades of the Trilateral Commission. Shades of the old "hidden agenda."
I think there is a real chance that, like their promises of new spending, these attacks will backfire on the Liberals. First, being a rerun of what they did last campaign, it looks old and tired. Second, given their growing record of scandal, people are probably now less disposed to believe them. And third, any exaggeration reminds the voters that the Liberal word is not reliable, reinforcing their problems with perceived lack of integrity. All the Conservatives need is to land one good strong refutation to any one of the charges, in the national press. If the press will cooperate.
The latest Toronto Star/Ekos poll, out yesterday, shows the Tories moving into majority territory, and ahead of the Liberals in Quebec.
I think we now have the possibility of a landslide.
With the Tories clearly ahead of the Liberals in Quebec, they become the federalist alternative. That will drain a lot of votes from the Liberals there. And a lot of votes from the BQ--people who were against corruption, not for separatism.
Ontario, where the Tories are now leading, should swing further in that direction, confident now that electing the Conservatives will not alienate Quebec. Ontario usually votes for a different party federally and provincially: it appeals to the province's innate caution.
I now expect a Conservative majority government.
"time for a change" argument. Both Layton and Harper also accused him, plausibly, of falsifying their platforms. This may hurt him on credibility and honesty, which is the main issue in Quebec.
The last Liberal chance is a full-blown smear campaign in their late TV ads. That has now begun. Harper is criticized, among other odd things, for his supposed links to a so-called "secret, ultra right-wing American think-tank." Shades of the Trilateral Commission. Shades of the old "hidden agenda."
I think there is a real chance that, like their promises of new spending, these attacks will backfire on the Liberals. First, being a rerun of what they did last campaign, it looks old and tired. Second, given their growing record of scandal, people are probably now less disposed to believe them. And third, any exaggeration reminds the voters that the Liberal word is not reliable, reinforcing their problems with perceived lack of integrity. All the Conservatives need is to land one good strong refutation to any one of the charges, in the national press. If the press will cooperate.
The latest Toronto Star/Ekos poll, out yesterday, shows the Tories moving into majority territory, and ahead of the Liberals in Quebec.
I think we now have the possibility of a landslide.
With the Tories clearly ahead of the Liberals in Quebec, they become the federalist alternative. That will drain a lot of votes from the Liberals there. And a lot of votes from the BQ--people who were against corruption, not for separatism.
Ontario, where the Tories are now leading, should swing further in that direction, confident now that electing the Conservatives will not alienate Quebec. Ontario usually votes for a different party federally and provincially: it appeals to the province's innate caution.
I now expect a Conservative majority government.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Scott Reid and Trudeau's Totalitarianism
Having been in Sri Lanka at the time, I missed my chance to comment on Scott Reid’s famous observation that rebates direct to parents to pay for daycare would just be “25 bucks a week to blow on beer and popcorn.”
Martin’s Director of Communications has apologized and withdrawn the remark. So perhaps it is unfair to harp on it. But I do think it pulls back a curtain on left-wing thinking generally.
Those on the left are essentially undemocratic in their sentiments. They do not believe in human equality. They believe they are themselves superior sorts, and should be controlling the rest of us as much as possible. For our own good, of course—and I believe most of them are perfectly sincere in thinking it would be for our own good. Making sure we wear seatbelts, teach our children all the correct thoughts, and spend our money wisely.
This is, in a word, conservatism; the terms “liberal” and “conservative” have been more or less reversed in modern Canadian usage. It is fundamentally the belief in class, and in the right and duty of the upper classes to manage the affairs of the lower.
Pierre Trudeau used to claim his political model was not Marx or Smith, but Plato’s Republic.
He was being sincere. Unfortunately, few have actually read Plato’s Republic. It does not advocate democracy. It calls for rule by a specialty groomed elite. It also calls for serious restrictions on free speech--welcome to the Hate Laws--and for the right of the government to lie to the people. It also calls for the abolition of the family.
Plato was a great admirer of Sparta. As Karl Popper pointed out, his “just society”—Trudeau’s tag for his political vision was direct from Plato’s Republic--was and is totalitarian, and a closed society.
Martin’s Director of Communications has apologized and withdrawn the remark. So perhaps it is unfair to harp on it. But I do think it pulls back a curtain on left-wing thinking generally.
Those on the left are essentially undemocratic in their sentiments. They do not believe in human equality. They believe they are themselves superior sorts, and should be controlling the rest of us as much as possible. For our own good, of course—and I believe most of them are perfectly sincere in thinking it would be for our own good. Making sure we wear seatbelts, teach our children all the correct thoughts, and spend our money wisely.
This is, in a word, conservatism; the terms “liberal” and “conservative” have been more or less reversed in modern Canadian usage. It is fundamentally the belief in class, and in the right and duty of the upper classes to manage the affairs of the lower.
Pierre Trudeau used to claim his political model was not Marx or Smith, but Plato’s Republic.
He was being sincere. Unfortunately, few have actually read Plato’s Republic. It does not advocate democracy. It calls for rule by a specialty groomed elite. It also calls for serious restrictions on free speech--welcome to the Hate Laws--and for the right of the government to lie to the people. It also calls for the abolition of the family.
Plato was a great admirer of Sparta. As Karl Popper pointed out, his “just society”—Trudeau’s tag for his political vision was direct from Plato’s Republic--was and is totalitarian, and a closed society.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Robinson Trails Fry
Reports are that Svend Robinson is trailing in his riding. This is good news for honesty in government. Leaving aside anything I think about Robinson’s politics, it is not a good idea to elect a known thief to parliament.
The downside: Svend Robinson’s loss is Hedy Fry’s gain. She’s the former minister who claimed that there were burning crosses on the lawns of Prince George.
Oh well. Elect the liar. It’s important.
***
In other news, the latest CTV/Strategic Council poll shows the Conservative lead continuing to grow: Conservatives 37%, Liberals 29%, NDP 15%.
Interesting to note, beyond the continuing Conservative momentum, is the decline in the NDP vote. As predicted: with the Tories looking like winners, the NDP vote starts to shrink. Most interesting, it is going not to the Liberals, but to the Conservatives. Also not so surprising: the Conservatives have now emerged as a realistic alternative government, and so votes are presumably moving Toryward from both BQ and NDP in order to turf out the Liberals.
The downside: Svend Robinson’s loss is Hedy Fry’s gain. She’s the former minister who claimed that there were burning crosses on the lawns of Prince George.
Oh well. Elect the liar. It’s important.
***
In other news, the latest CTV/Strategic Council poll shows the Conservative lead continuing to grow: Conservatives 37%, Liberals 29%, NDP 15%.
Interesting to note, beyond the continuing Conservative momentum, is the decline in the NDP vote. As predicted: with the Tories looking like winners, the NDP vote starts to shrink. Most interesting, it is going not to the Liberals, but to the Conservatives. Also not so surprising: the Conservatives have now emerged as a realistic alternative government, and so votes are presumably moving Toryward from both BQ and NDP in order to turf out the Liberals.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Hairspray
The Economist reports the growing scientific likelihood that the globe is indeed warming (“Changing science,” The Economist, December 10, 2005). “That the climate is warming now seems certain,” the magazine concludes. This may even be due to human activity, not just to the increase in the sun’s heat output in recent years (caused by unusual sunspot activity).
But if so, environmentalists may be partly to blame. It turns out that aerosols, of the sort that were systematically banned a couple of decades ago, promote cloud formation, and could have counteracted the effects of “greenhouse gases.”
And even now, it would be one heck of a lot cheaper than Kyoto simply to lift the ban on aerosols, and let them do their thing.
But if so, environmentalists may be partly to blame. It turns out that aerosols, of the sort that were systematically banned a couple of decades ago, promote cloud formation, and could have counteracted the effects of “greenhouse gases.”
And even now, it would be one heck of a lot cheaper than Kyoto simply to lift the ban on aerosols, and let them do their thing.
Saturday, January 07, 2006
It's Happening
The polls now suggest we are close to a tipping point that could lead not only to a Tory government, but a Tory majority.
Liberals and Conservatives are now running about even--Tories with a slight lead--in the country as a whole. But the big news is in Quebec. Stephen Harper's strategy of concentrating on Quebec, as I had hoped, seems to be paying dividends. Some polls now show the Conservatives tied with the Liberals in Quebec. SES shows their support growing in that province by 3 percentage points a day.
This is the tipping point. If the Tories clearly take over from the Liberals as the federalist alternative in Quebec, the Liberal vote in Quebec collapses. If the Liberal vote in Quebec collapses, the Liberal vote in Ontario collapses. There will be some movement from the NDP to the Liberals in the face of a probable Tory win, but this should be a smaller factor. Some NDP voters would actually, I believe, feel more comfortable with the Conservatives than the Liberals, and may migrate to the Tories as well.
I think it would take something like a disaster in the Tory campaign to lose the election now. Fifty percent chance of a Tory majority, by me.
Liberals and Conservatives are now running about even--Tories with a slight lead--in the country as a whole. But the big news is in Quebec. Stephen Harper's strategy of concentrating on Quebec, as I had hoped, seems to be paying dividends. Some polls now show the Conservatives tied with the Liberals in Quebec. SES shows their support growing in that province by 3 percentage points a day.
This is the tipping point. If the Tories clearly take over from the Liberals as the federalist alternative in Quebec, the Liberal vote in Quebec collapses. If the Liberal vote in Quebec collapses, the Liberal vote in Ontario collapses. There will be some movement from the NDP to the Liberals in the face of a probable Tory win, but this should be a smaller factor. Some NDP voters would actually, I believe, feel more comfortable with the Conservatives than the Liberals, and may migrate to the Tories as well.
I think it would take something like a disaster in the Tory campaign to lose the election now. Fifty percent chance of a Tory majority, by me.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
It May Be Happening
The movement the Conservatives need to win this election just may have begun.
George Bush's poll numbers are up in the US: up eight points in two weeks, apparently because of the success of the Iraq election.
This is what was needed: it has been Bush's unpopularity that was the main drag on the CPC.
And, Bob's yer uncle, up the CPC poll numbers are coming already. Or rather, the Liberals are coming down. Liberals 33, Conservatives 29. Within striking range now. I think Harper is also very clever to be pushing the idea of the Conservatives as a federalist alternative in Quebec. Surely there's an opportunity right now to take over that banner from the discredited Liberals. And, perhaps, an obligation, for the sake of Canada's future. If he can close a sale on that in Quebec--something that can happen quite quickly in Quebec--it could have massive implications for Ontario as well. Ontario bases its vote in large part on who it thinks can "handle" Quebec.
Remarkably, seat projections based on the latest poll suggest Paul Martin could actually lose his own seat. Should that happen, even if the result of the vote was not otherwise decisive, he would probably have to resign. And that too would be good news for the Tories. Frankly, Paul Martin seems to me to be the best they've got.
George Bush's poll numbers are up in the US: up eight points in two weeks, apparently because of the success of the Iraq election.
This is what was needed: it has been Bush's unpopularity that was the main drag on the CPC.
And, Bob's yer uncle, up the CPC poll numbers are coming already. Or rather, the Liberals are coming down. Liberals 33, Conservatives 29. Within striking range now. I think Harper is also very clever to be pushing the idea of the Conservatives as a federalist alternative in Quebec. Surely there's an opportunity right now to take over that banner from the discredited Liberals. And, perhaps, an obligation, for the sake of Canada's future. If he can close a sale on that in Quebec--something that can happen quite quickly in Quebec--it could have massive implications for Ontario as well. Ontario bases its vote in large part on who it thinks can "handle" Quebec.
Remarkably, seat projections based on the latest poll suggest Paul Martin could actually lose his own seat. Should that happen, even if the result of the vote was not otherwise decisive, he would probably have to resign. And that too would be good news for the Tories. Frankly, Paul Martin seems to me to be the best they've got.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Paul Martin Comes Out in Favour of Canada
“I will defend the Canadian position and I will defend our values and I will defend our interests against anybody." Paul Martin.
"You are not going to take my country away from me with some trick, with some ambiguous question." Paul Martin.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Samuel Johnson.
Jean Chretien was a past master at wrapping himself in the flag. But the growing tendency to do this, to dwell on supposed "Canadian values" and anti-Americanism, growing through the Chretien and now the Martin years, is a direct measure, as such nationalism and anti-Americanism is in the Third World, of the growing corruption in Canadian government and in Canada's elite.
How long are the Canadian people going to be suckered by it?
"You are not going to take my country away from me with some trick, with some ambiguous question." Paul Martin.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Samuel Johnson.
Jean Chretien was a past master at wrapping himself in the flag. But the growing tendency to do this, to dwell on supposed "Canadian values" and anti-Americanism, growing through the Chretien and now the Martin years, is a direct measure, as such nationalism and anti-Americanism is in the Third World, of the growing corruption in Canadian government and in Canada's elite.
How long are the Canadian people going to be suckered by it?
Sunday, December 18, 2005
I Can't Bear to Look
Sorry, folks, I'm still too depressed to comment much on the Canadian election. Still no sign of movement in the polls.
I think the problem is that the current unpopularity of George Bush is actually hurting Canadian Conservatives. Canada follows the US politically in lock-step, with about a five to seven year delay, except, if by that point the American move is not looking like a good idea, Canada balks.
Canada is balking on swinging right.
Meantime, I'm vacationing in an undisclosed secure location in Sri Lanka, and trying to forget about it all.
Worst case scenario: this election ends almost the same as the last. Stephen Harper will probably have to step down as leader. I suspect Ralph Klein will be waiting to take over, and he could be formidable federally. There is nobody else on the Liberal side as strong as Martin. If he steps down instead of facing another minority-- doubt he will--that would be all to the good for the CPC.
I think the problem is that the current unpopularity of George Bush is actually hurting Canadian Conservatives. Canada follows the US politically in lock-step, with about a five to seven year delay, except, if by that point the American move is not looking like a good idea, Canada balks.
Canada is balking on swinging right.
Meantime, I'm vacationing in an undisclosed secure location in Sri Lanka, and trying to forget about it all.
Worst case scenario: this election ends almost the same as the last. Stephen Harper will probably have to step down as leader. I suspect Ralph Klein will be waiting to take over, and he could be formidable federally. There is nobody else on the Liberal side as strong as Martin. If he steps down instead of facing another minority-- doubt he will--that would be all to the good for the CPC.
Friday, December 09, 2005
Concerned Voter Writes
A recent discussion on an email list brings out some popular misconceptions:
Concerned voter:
Unless you want to be paying for health care out of pocket, tax cuts are undesirable.
Abbot:
If there were no government health plan, it is unlikely that most Canadians would be paying for health care out of their own pockets. Anyone who was employed, and their family, would probably be covered by an employer’s plan. This is the case in other developed countries that do not have government-run health care plans.
We’ll get to taxes a little further on.
Concerned voter:
People argue that government is wasteful; but if these services were performed by for-profit businesses, we would not only have to pay for the basic cost of the service, but also for the profits collected by a corporation's shareholders.
Abbot:
Sounds good in theory, perhaps, but the proof is in the pudding. When, in the past, we’ve had government-owned enterprises competing directly with private concerns--Air Canada vs. CP Air, CBC vs. CTV, CN vs. CP, and so forth—the government entity has usually required big subsidies to hold its own in the marketplace. How come?
The discipline of the market forces efficiencies that more than make up for the profit margin. The profit taken by shareholders is nothing compared to what an established bureaucracy can squander in empire building and feathering its own nest.
Concerned voter:
What about the cost of running their marketting and advertising departments which, in a for-profit company, suck a good portion of the operating costs to ensure profitability?
Abbot:
Advertising is not a drag; it is a legitimate service to the public. It is educational; what you do not know about is not available to you.
As to the cost, do you really find that the cost of long distance services has gone up, and the quality declined, since Bell Canada lost its monopoly and the various providers had to start advertising and marketing?
Discipline of the market.
Concerned voter:
It is meaningless to speak of tax cuts without talking about program cuts. If you want to pay lower taxes, then look at the federal budget and decide what you would like to cut out.
Abbot:
Not so, according to the current “supply side” economic theory. (Not so according to Keynesianism, either.)
First, if the government has been running surpluses, as it has, it follows that you can cut taxes immediately without cutting services.
Second, according to the theory, if you cut taxes, you stimulate the economy. Greater economic activity means that your revenue stream does not go down—it is more likely to go up, over time. You will collect more, not less, money in taxes.
Third, by privatizing the provision of some services, thereby introducing market discipline, you can probably provide the same services at lower cost. This would be an argument for things like school vouchers, the Conservative plan to remit money for child care directly to families, or allowing more private provision of medical treatment.
Concerned voter:
We need more, not less, money in government services. Look at the long waits for medical care.
Abbot:
Simple rule of economics: when you fix prices, you get shortages. You are short-circuiting the supply and demand equation.
Concerned voter:
True, in a private hospital, you won't wait as long. Then again, unless you're well off, you won't get inside either. That's what makes them "efficient".
Abbot:
No, it isn’t. A survey in Manitoba actually showed that the wealthy are no more likely than the poor to resort to private provision of medical care. Again, it depends on what is covered in your employer’s plan.
Concerned voter:
…Promises to cut taxes are cheap. Promises to cut spending better reveal the true intentions of a candidate.
Abbot:
There’s truth in that. But to be fair and balanced, you need to remember the corollary. Promises to improve services are cheap. Promises to raise specific taxes better reveal the true intentions of the candidate.
Concerned voter:
Unless you want to be paying for health care out of pocket, tax cuts are undesirable.
Abbot:
If there were no government health plan, it is unlikely that most Canadians would be paying for health care out of their own pockets. Anyone who was employed, and their family, would probably be covered by an employer’s plan. This is the case in other developed countries that do not have government-run health care plans.
We’ll get to taxes a little further on.
Concerned voter:
People argue that government is wasteful; but if these services were performed by for-profit businesses, we would not only have to pay for the basic cost of the service, but also for the profits collected by a corporation's shareholders.
Abbot:
Sounds good in theory, perhaps, but the proof is in the pudding. When, in the past, we’ve had government-owned enterprises competing directly with private concerns--Air Canada vs. CP Air, CBC vs. CTV, CN vs. CP, and so forth—the government entity has usually required big subsidies to hold its own in the marketplace. How come?
The discipline of the market forces efficiencies that more than make up for the profit margin. The profit taken by shareholders is nothing compared to what an established bureaucracy can squander in empire building and feathering its own nest.
Concerned voter:
What about the cost of running their marketting and advertising departments which, in a for-profit company, suck a good portion of the operating costs to ensure profitability?
Abbot:
Advertising is not a drag; it is a legitimate service to the public. It is educational; what you do not know about is not available to you.
As to the cost, do you really find that the cost of long distance services has gone up, and the quality declined, since Bell Canada lost its monopoly and the various providers had to start advertising and marketing?
Discipline of the market.
Concerned voter:
It is meaningless to speak of tax cuts without talking about program cuts. If you want to pay lower taxes, then look at the federal budget and decide what you would like to cut out.
Abbot:
Not so, according to the current “supply side” economic theory. (Not so according to Keynesianism, either.)
First, if the government has been running surpluses, as it has, it follows that you can cut taxes immediately without cutting services.
Second, according to the theory, if you cut taxes, you stimulate the economy. Greater economic activity means that your revenue stream does not go down—it is more likely to go up, over time. You will collect more, not less, money in taxes.
Third, by privatizing the provision of some services, thereby introducing market discipline, you can probably provide the same services at lower cost. This would be an argument for things like school vouchers, the Conservative plan to remit money for child care directly to families, or allowing more private provision of medical treatment.
Concerned voter:
We need more, not less, money in government services. Look at the long waits for medical care.
Abbot:
Simple rule of economics: when you fix prices, you get shortages. You are short-circuiting the supply and demand equation.
Concerned voter:
True, in a private hospital, you won't wait as long. Then again, unless you're well off, you won't get inside either. That's what makes them "efficient".
Abbot:
No, it isn’t. A survey in Manitoba actually showed that the wealthy are no more likely than the poor to resort to private provision of medical care. Again, it depends on what is covered in your employer’s plan.
Concerned voter:
…Promises to cut taxes are cheap. Promises to cut spending better reveal the true intentions of a candidate.
Abbot:
There’s truth in that. But to be fair and balanced, you need to remember the corollary. Promises to improve services are cheap. Promises to raise specific taxes better reveal the true intentions of the candidate.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
The Canadian Election
Now is the time, no doubt, for all good men to come to the aid of the party. Yet I am still silent. My apologies. This has a lot to do with getting ready for Christmas and more to do with getting ready to go off on vacation to an undisclosed location in Sri Lanka.
But it is also that the Canadian election is just too depressing. As the polls sit, it will just be another Liberal minority about as before. The only movement I've seen so far is between the Liberals and the NDP. And the media have begun their usual full-court press against the Conservative leader and his message.
Of course, things could change after Christmas, once people begin focusing more on the election.
Hey! That could go for me as well!
But even if Harper gets a minority, it isn't enough to break through. He'd have to count on the support of the BQ for legislation, and there is very little those two parties have in common. I can see the Liberals losing the election, yet still hanging on to power by making a formal coalition with the NDP. Or another short minority like Joe Clark's.
I have already voted, by the way. Kudos to Elections Canada for making it possible. The ballot arrived from Canada by courier.
But it is also that the Canadian election is just too depressing. As the polls sit, it will just be another Liberal minority about as before. The only movement I've seen so far is between the Liberals and the NDP. And the media have begun their usual full-court press against the Conservative leader and his message.
Of course, things could change after Christmas, once people begin focusing more on the election.
Hey! That could go for me as well!
But even if Harper gets a minority, it isn't enough to break through. He'd have to count on the support of the BQ for legislation, and there is very little those two parties have in common. I can see the Liberals losing the election, yet still hanging on to power by making a formal coalition with the NDP. Or another short minority like Joe Clark's.
I have already voted, by the way. Kudos to Elections Canada for making it possible. The ballot arrived from Canada by courier.
Friday, December 02, 2005
Filipinos for Harper
The Liberals may have trouble this time playing the racism card.
A recent Globe poll points out that support for the two parties among visible minorities is now just about the same as it is in the general population.
It’s about time. In terms of policies, those of the Conservatives have long been more favourable to recent immigrants than those of the Liberals. And the Conservative stance on moral issues is much closer to the views of most immigrant and visible minority families.
The Globe theorizes that the ongoing Tory-ward shift among visible minorities has a lot to do with the corruption issue. It could well be. Nobody knows better than folks who have grown up in the Third World how devastating government corruption can be.
Personally, I suspect a lot of it has to do with what was called, in the recent American election, “values.” Not just corruption, but gay marriage, abortion, and secularization.
I also think visible minorities must have become sick of being patronized by the Liberals, with their “Boys’ Book of Empire” concept of smiling brown natives dancing in colourful traditional costume that was “multiculturalism.”
The Globe story is here:
http://tinyurl.com/dsme8
A recent Globe poll points out that support for the two parties among visible minorities is now just about the same as it is in the general population.
It’s about time. In terms of policies, those of the Conservatives have long been more favourable to recent immigrants than those of the Liberals. And the Conservative stance on moral issues is much closer to the views of most immigrant and visible minority families.
The Globe theorizes that the ongoing Tory-ward shift among visible minorities has a lot to do with the corruption issue. It could well be. Nobody knows better than folks who have grown up in the Third World how devastating government corruption can be.
Personally, I suspect a lot of it has to do with what was called, in the recent American election, “values.” Not just corruption, but gay marriage, abortion, and secularization.
I also think visible minorities must have become sick of being patronized by the Liberals, with their “Boys’ Book of Empire” concept of smiling brown natives dancing in colourful traditional costume that was “multiculturalism.”
The Globe story is here:
http://tinyurl.com/dsme8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)