Many, many years ago!
Monday, June 28, 2010
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Why would Ignatieff Trash One of His Own Candidates?
What's he thinking when he says stuff like this?
Bizarre. There's already one of his own, hand chosen, candidates running in the riding. And, I like her.
'Hector, I would like you to consider running for me because you're the only one who can win the seat back for us.'
Bizarre. There's already one of his own, hand chosen, candidates running in the riding. And, I like her.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Sunday, June 20, 2010
James Travers Laments for a Country
Travers asks us to imagine a country. What I have to say to James Travers is that we also have to imagine a futile opposition that abandoned every one of their known principles to let all this shit happen in the first place. Shame on all of them!
Here's the article in its entirety.
Here's the article in its entirety.
Travers: Changing Canada, one backward step
at a time
Published On Sat Jun 19
By James Travers
National Affairs Columnist Imagine a country where Parliament is padlocked twice in 13 months to frustrate the democratic will of the elected majority. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that slyly relaxes environmental regulations even as its neighbour reels from a catastrophic oil leak blamed on slack controls. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that boasts about prudent financial management while blowing through a $13-billion surplus on the way to a $47-billion deficit. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country where a political operative puts fork-tongued words in a top general’s mouth. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that refuses to fund the same safe abortions to poor women abroad as it provides at home. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country where the national police commissioner skews a federal election and is never forced to explain. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that writes a covert manual on sabotaging Commons committees. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country dragging its climate change feet as the true north melts. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that silences political debate on the sale of a publicly owned, crown jewel corporation. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that puts higher priority on building super-prisons than keeping people out of them. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country where parties that win the most federal seats are dismissed as “losers”. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that twists its foreign policy around the interests of another nation. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that argues that barricading its largest city promotes tourism. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that promises Senate reform only to continue stuffing it with political hacks. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that avoids answers about a controversial war by accusing questioners of supporting the enemy. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country where party apparatchiks decide who in a nominally free press is allowed to ask the Prime Minister questions. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country where donut shop wisdom is more prized than expert analysis. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that builds a fake lake for a tough-times summit. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that preaches law and order while killing a long-gun registry police chiefs insist makes citizens safer. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country where serving the Prime Minister as chief propagandist is job preparation for running a national news network. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country where charities mute constructive criticism of public policy for fear of losing federal funding. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that can spend $1.2 billion for summit security but can’t find the petty cash needed to invest in the status of women. That country is now this country.
Imagine a country that promises accountability only to impose secrecy. That country is now this country.
Every example is familiar, all are documented. Only the cumulative effect is surprising.
Conservatives came to power knowing reluctant Canadians could only be shifted to the political right incrementally. That movement is now advancing according to the plan Conservative thinker, strategist and Stephen Harper mentor Tom Flanagan infuriated the Prime Minister by making public.
Imagine that.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
The United Party of Canada
I'm told they are only weeks away from being approved by Elections Canada. Sick of all the other parties? Why not join in their quest. Or see their Facebook Group here.
How Out of Touch is the Liberal Leader You Ask
Today Nik Nanos released his latest poll identifying what Canadians think their top priorities are. Here are the short strokes:
Methodology
Nanos conducted a random telephone survey of 1,008 Canadians, 18 years of age and older, between May 29th and June 3rd, 2010. A survey of 1,008 Canadians is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20.
Top Issue Question: What is your most important NATIONAL issue of concern? [unprompted] (The numbers in parentheses denote the change in the Nanos National Omnibus surveys between May and June, 2010.)
National (n=1,008)
Top Five Issues
Healthcare: 23.1% (+0.3)
Jobs/economy: 19.2% (+0.6)
The environment: 12.6% (+1.8)
High taxes: 5.3% (-0.1)
Education: 2.5% (-2.9)
Health Care You Ask? Well, the Toronto Star just happens to be writing about the Liberal Leader's vacancy on the issue just this morning as luck should have it.
Notice that the Nanos Poll doesn't identify leaving our troops in Afghanistan or traveling to India or China? (although some could argue that falls under the category of the Economy I suppose)
But, for Liberals, not all polls are bad.
Methodology
Nanos conducted a random telephone survey of 1,008 Canadians, 18 years of age and older, between May 29th and June 3rd, 2010. A survey of 1,008 Canadians is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20.
Top Issue Question: What is your most important NATIONAL issue of concern? [unprompted] (The numbers in parentheses denote the change in the Nanos National Omnibus surveys between May and June, 2010.)
National (n=1,008)
Top Five Issues
Healthcare: 23.1% (+0.3)
Jobs/economy: 19.2% (+0.6)
The environment: 12.6% (+1.8)
High taxes: 5.3% (-0.1)
Education: 2.5% (-2.9)
Health Care You Ask? Well, the Toronto Star just happens to be writing about the Liberal Leader's vacancy on the issue just this morning as luck should have it.
On June 17, his group will host a meeting on Parliament Hill for politicians of all parties to discuss the long-term viability of medicare. Some 40 MPs and senators have indicated they will attend.
But Ignatieff isn’t expected to be among them. Once again, the Liberal leader will be missing in action when it comes to health care. It’s a pattern that disturbs medicare proponents. Just last weekend, for example, Ignatieff led a daylong Liberal policy meeting in Toronto, but health care wasn’t even on the agenda, though it was discussed briefly in at least one of the sessions.
For medicare supporters, the key question is whether the party that introduced universal health care in the 1960s will be there to defend it in the future. Under Ignatieff, the answer is unclear.
Notice that the Nanos Poll doesn't identify leaving our troops in Afghanistan or traveling to India or China? (although some could argue that falls under the category of the Economy I suppose)
But, for Liberals, not all polls are bad.
Smitherman Has Questions for Rob Ford
It's clear that The Smitherman camp has decided who their main threat is. And, no, it's not Rocco Rossi. Here's some questions the Smitherman camp are asking of Rob Ford.
For Immediate Release
June 14, 2010
A Monday morning wake up call for Rob Ford
Good morning Rob ... It’s time you answered some questions
Rob Ford likes to sell himself as a numbers guy, but often his numbers don’t make any sense. Take for instance his promise to cut the number of councillors in half. A promise that can only be kept if councillors themselves agree to it (at best a long-shot and more likely an impossibility). And even then, it would not result in a penny of savings until December 2014.
Despite these facts – Rob Ford has tried to use these imaginary “savings” to pay for his promise to spend $15 million a year to hire 100 police officers and put them in schools.
Over four years, that’s $60 million in new spending before we see any savings.
Which is it Rob? Will the schools have to wait or do your numbers not add up?
-30-
George Smitherman June 15 at 8:56am Report
For Immediate Release
Good morning Rob... it's time you answered some questions
Transit and gridlock:
Rob, your comments on transit have people confused. Everywhere you go you say, "I like subways... I don't like streetcars." At the CP24 debate you said: "street cars no way – we have to go with subways." You have even gone so far as to tell the National Post that you have identified two new subway lines as priorities (Eglinton and Sheppard).
When Torontonians hear you say these things, they actually think you are going to build subways. By the way, those two lines alone are $6.7 billion.
But you have been kinda sneaky on this Rob – you have never actually said how you planned to pay for any transit improvements or expansion other than talking about "air rights" which is nothing but hot air and won't get you very far.
In fact you have done the opposite. You also told folks twice during the CP24 debate that transit wasn't a big priority. Not a priority? Really?
Which is it – will there be new subways or not – if so, where exactly – and how are you going to pay for them?
-30-
George Smitherman June 16 at 1:16pm ReportGood morning Rob... it’s time you answered some questions
The million dollar part-time councillor:
In return for their full-time salary, councillors are expected to work full-time.
Rob, since you were first elected, taxpayers have paid you over $1,034,281 in salary and benefits.
The problem is you have another job. A real busy one.
You are also the Chief Financial Officer of Deco Labels & Tags. It’s your family’s business and it’s pretty big: over 250 employees in Toronto, Chicago and New Jersey and close to $100 million in annual sales.
Most CFOs will tell you they usually work more than 60 hours a week. Given the fact that you always describe yourself as a “businessman” and never as a “politician,” it’s clear which job has been your priority.
It’s no wonder your fellow councillors have described you as being: “poorly briefed on reports and frequently absent from debates and votes.”
The real question is - if you haven’t been a full-time councillor – why have you been cashing a full-time pay cheque?
For Immediate Release
June 14, 2010
A Monday morning wake up call for Rob Ford
Good morning Rob ... It’s time you answered some questions
Rob Ford likes to sell himself as a numbers guy, but often his numbers don’t make any sense. Take for instance his promise to cut the number of councillors in half. A promise that can only be kept if councillors themselves agree to it (at best a long-shot and more likely an impossibility). And even then, it would not result in a penny of savings until December 2014.
Despite these facts – Rob Ford has tried to use these imaginary “savings” to pay for his promise to spend $15 million a year to hire 100 police officers and put them in schools.
Over four years, that’s $60 million in new spending before we see any savings.
Which is it Rob? Will the schools have to wait or do your numbers not add up?
-30-
George Smitherman June 15 at 8:56am Report
For Immediate Release
Good morning Rob... it's time you answered some questions
Transit and gridlock:
Rob, your comments on transit have people confused. Everywhere you go you say, "I like subways... I don't like streetcars." At the CP24 debate you said: "street cars no way – we have to go with subways." You have even gone so far as to tell the National Post that you have identified two new subway lines as priorities (Eglinton and Sheppard).
When Torontonians hear you say these things, they actually think you are going to build subways. By the way, those two lines alone are $6.7 billion.
But you have been kinda sneaky on this Rob – you have never actually said how you planned to pay for any transit improvements or expansion other than talking about "air rights" which is nothing but hot air and won't get you very far.
In fact you have done the opposite. You also told folks twice during the CP24 debate that transit wasn't a big priority. Not a priority? Really?
Which is it – will there be new subways or not – if so, where exactly – and how are you going to pay for them?
-30-
George Smitherman June 16 at 1:16pm ReportGood morning Rob... it’s time you answered some questions
The million dollar part-time councillor:
In return for their full-time salary, councillors are expected to work full-time.
Rob, since you were first elected, taxpayers have paid you over $1,034,281 in salary and benefits.
The problem is you have another job. A real busy one.
You are also the Chief Financial Officer of Deco Labels & Tags. It’s your family’s business and it’s pretty big: over 250 employees in Toronto, Chicago and New Jersey and close to $100 million in annual sales.
Most CFOs will tell you they usually work more than 60 hours a week. Given the fact that you always describe yourself as a “businessman” and never as a “politician,” it’s clear which job has been your priority.
It’s no wonder your fellow councillors have described you as being: “poorly briefed on reports and frequently absent from debates and votes.”
The real question is - if you haven’t been a full-time councillor – why have you been cashing a full-time pay cheque?
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
That's it! Liberal Parliamentarians Have Officially Lost Their Minds
Failing Canada and Canadians on basically every single issue, I give you the once proud Liberal Party of Canada.
Let's have a look at how Team Ignatieff has decided to wind down their last days of the session shall we.
Last week Iggybots had a chance to take down the Conservatives on the most ridiculous Budget Bill in the history of Canada that included 900 pages of everything from soup to nuts and at least 5 non-budgetary bills. They chose to absent 30 MPs instead.
Yesterday, in the Senate, Conservative Senator Murray tried to rally the Liberal troops to split that same budget bill. He fell short. The result of all this bullshit? The Environment is lost in Canada for at least another generation or 2. Way to go team Liberal, party of Kyoto! Bravo!
Big issue #2 was that we forced Liberal MP and speaker of the House, Peter Milliken to make an historic ruling on Parliamentary Priviledge only to cave yesterday and take it in the ear again from Stephen Harper's dictatorship. Shame on you Mr. Ignatieff for failing the Parliament of Canada. Shame.
Issue #3. After 1.5 years of waiting for some kind of substantial policy from the leader's office - and 2 commissions, a convention and a HUGE Montreal thinker's conference later - we get a foreign policy position from the leader. The result???? WE SHOULD STAY IN AFGHANISTAN! WTF are you thinking?
I'm just wondering what happened to my grandaddy's Liberals and why any of us are sticking around for the bloodbath.
Michael Ignatieff was right. We didn't get it done....AGAIN
Let's have a look at how Team Ignatieff has decided to wind down their last days of the session shall we.
Last week Iggybots had a chance to take down the Conservatives on the most ridiculous Budget Bill in the history of Canada that included 900 pages of everything from soup to nuts and at least 5 non-budgetary bills. They chose to absent 30 MPs instead.
Yesterday, in the Senate, Conservative Senator Murray tried to rally the Liberal troops to split that same budget bill. He fell short. The result of all this bullshit? The Environment is lost in Canada for at least another generation or 2. Way to go team Liberal, party of Kyoto! Bravo!
Big issue #2 was that we forced Liberal MP and speaker of the House, Peter Milliken to make an historic ruling on Parliamentary Priviledge only to cave yesterday and take it in the ear again from Stephen Harper's dictatorship. Shame on you Mr. Ignatieff for failing the Parliament of Canada. Shame.
Issue #3. After 1.5 years of waiting for some kind of substantial policy from the leader's office - and 2 commissions, a convention and a HUGE Montreal thinker's conference later - we get a foreign policy position from the leader. The result???? WE SHOULD STAY IN AFGHANISTAN! WTF are you thinking?
I'm just wondering what happened to my grandaddy's Liberals and why any of us are sticking around for the bloodbath.
Michael Ignatieff was right. We didn't get it done....AGAIN
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Who Will Replace Apps as the Next Liberal President?
Next week Alf Apps is scheduled to step down as Liberal Party President. The norm lately has been to appoint the Executive Vice President.
It's rumoured the Leader's Office is preferring Kukucha over Garceau.
I'm not 100% sure of the rules, but I don't think it's outside the scope of the National Board of Directors to pick someone from outside their own little click. So feel free to email them with ideas or state your choice for president in the comment section here.
It's rumoured the Leader's Office is preferring Kukucha over Garceau.
I'm not 100% sure of the rules, but I don't think it's outside the scope of the National Board of Directors to pick someone from outside their own little click. So feel free to email them with ideas or state your choice for president in the comment section here.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
About Warren Kinsella, John Mraz and Alf Apps
I've received many an email over the last day or so asking me what the hell this Kinsella/Apps thing is all about. "Why would Kinsella swear an affidavit?" one reader asks. "Who the hell is John Mraz?" another asks. Didn't you call for Apps' resignation recently?" asks another.
Here's what I know and here's what I think.
Warren signed an affidavit. A legal document. He knew he could because he knew what he was saying was nothing but the truth so help him God. What else Warren probably knew is that Alfred Apps couldn't possibly do the same. Why, you ask? Well, I'll let you guess at that one.
Alfred Apps has a tendency to believe he, and he alone, is the centre of the universe. See my previous posts in archives. Probably in a conversation with WK and a subsequent conversation with Mraz, Mr. Apps may have thrown some names out there unassumingly....or not. Afterall, he's the guy that claimed to know Pierre Trudeau better than Trudeau's own son.
And, yes, I have called for his resignation over the whole Gallani/Jaffer affair because I think that Mr. Apps should have disclosed his meeting with Gallani to the Liberal Party of Canada before the witch hunt began.
Which leaves me with John Mraz. I damn neared died laughing when I heard Penny Collenette on Power and Politics yesterday when she denied on three occasions that she has never even HEARD of this John Mraz person. (Likened it to that biblical guy with Jesus where the cock crows). I mean really. The guy's been around some serious Liberal backrooms, was part of the War Room as recently as a few months ago and writes a column for the National Post. (Note donor 354 here. Mraz was big in Rae circles during the '06 leadership) What Liberal planet is she living on?
Further, I know John Mraz personally. I don't think he's about to put pen to paper to back up his buddy Warren unless it was nothing but the truth. Putting himself out there like that just isn't his M O.
So, what I'm telling you my Liberal friends is that two guys signed affidavits swearing the truth. One guy didn't. Enough said. With any luck these rumours of Apps are true too.
Now, what is it all about? Hell if I know, but what I can tell you is that the return of the senior Martinites is disturbing to me, and I'm certain WK probably ain't very thrilled about it either. Especially with the talking popcorn master on CBC everyday speaking for the Joe average Liberal.
It looks as though there really is a power struggle behind the scenes in Liberaland. Then again, what do I know?
Here's what I know and here's what I think.
Warren signed an affidavit. A legal document. He knew he could because he knew what he was saying was nothing but the truth so help him God. What else Warren probably knew is that Alfred Apps couldn't possibly do the same. Why, you ask? Well, I'll let you guess at that one.
Alfred Apps has a tendency to believe he, and he alone, is the centre of the universe. See my previous posts in archives. Probably in a conversation with WK and a subsequent conversation with Mraz, Mr. Apps may have thrown some names out there unassumingly....or not. Afterall, he's the guy that claimed to know Pierre Trudeau better than Trudeau's own son.
And, yes, I have called for his resignation over the whole Gallani/Jaffer affair because I think that Mr. Apps should have disclosed his meeting with Gallani to the Liberal Party of Canada before the witch hunt began.
Which leaves me with John Mraz. I damn neared died laughing when I heard Penny Collenette on Power and Politics yesterday when she denied on three occasions that she has never even HEARD of this John Mraz person. (Likened it to that biblical guy with Jesus where the cock crows). I mean really. The guy's been around some serious Liberal backrooms, was part of the War Room as recently as a few months ago and writes a column for the National Post. (Note donor 354 here. Mraz was big in Rae circles during the '06 leadership) What Liberal planet is she living on?
Further, I know John Mraz personally. I don't think he's about to put pen to paper to back up his buddy Warren unless it was nothing but the truth. Putting himself out there like that just isn't his M O.
So, what I'm telling you my Liberal friends is that two guys signed affidavits swearing the truth. One guy didn't. Enough said. With any luck these rumours of Apps are true too.
Now, what is it all about? Hell if I know, but what I can tell you is that the return of the senior Martinites is disturbing to me, and I'm certain WK probably ain't very thrilled about it either. Especially with the talking popcorn master on CBC everyday speaking for the Joe average Liberal.
It looks as though there really is a power struggle behind the scenes in Liberaland. Then again, what do I know?
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Liberal Party of Canada - Failing Canadians One Budget Bill at a Time
Let me just say I am disgusted with the Liberal Party of Canada who, singlehandedly, today sold Canada and Canadians down the river by not defeating this budget bill. If I were a constituent in any of their ridings right now, I'd picket their damn offices and demand their resignations. In fact, I think they should resign. They weren't elected to skip out on the most important of votes in the House of Commons. Disgusting. Total lack of principles and morals.
And why the hell is Stephen Harper getting away with contempt of Parliament? Where is the Liberal Party of Canada on this Afghan document release? WHERE?
Grow some balls Mr. Ignatieff and do your damn job!!!
And why the hell is Stephen Harper getting away with contempt of Parliament? Where is the Liberal Party of Canada on this Afghan document release? WHERE?
Grow some balls Mr. Ignatieff and do your damn job!!!
Monday, June 7, 2010
Liberals Lose Another Star Candidate
Dan Mclean, announced his withdrawal as Liberal candidate for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale earlier tonight.
His withdrawal announcement will likely coincide with an announcement that he will be soon be throwing his hat into Hamilton's Mayoral contest.
All polls show Mclean with a substantial lead in the mayoral race, despite the fact that he has never indicated that he was considering running for the Mayor's chair at City Hall.
It is perfect timing for Mclean to enter the race for Hamilton's top spot, with low voter interest in any of the other candidates, including incumbent Mayor, Fred Eisenberger with his bungling of the Pan Am Games stadium file and a lackluster term as mayor.
Mclean is poised to capitalize on his substantial name recognition and his strong local network.
This announcement is sure to provoke more interest in what was sure to be a dud of fall municipal election.
Perhaps this is a case of another Liberal loss for a greater municipal gain, with Maurizio Bevilacqua likely in line to be the next Mayor of Vaughn.
His withdrawal announcement will likely coincide with an announcement that he will be soon be throwing his hat into Hamilton's Mayoral contest.
All polls show Mclean with a substantial lead in the mayoral race, despite the fact that he has never indicated that he was considering running for the Mayor's chair at City Hall.
It is perfect timing for Mclean to enter the race for Hamilton's top spot, with low voter interest in any of the other candidates, including incumbent Mayor, Fred Eisenberger with his bungling of the Pan Am Games stadium file and a lackluster term as mayor.
Mclean is poised to capitalize on his substantial name recognition and his strong local network.
This announcement is sure to provoke more interest in what was sure to be a dud of fall municipal election.
Perhaps this is a case of another Liberal loss for a greater municipal gain, with Maurizio Bevilacqua likely in line to be the next Mayor of Vaughn.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
And More About this Coalition...
of the UNWILLING....
Can somebody, nay, anybody, please tell me how you can have a coalition with one's self? Because, for the life of me, I can't find a single Dipper anywhere suggesting they want a coalition with this spineless rump of a party formerly known as the Natural Governing Party.
Anyone? Bueller?
Can somebody, nay, anybody, please tell me how you can have a coalition with one's self? Because, for the life of me, I can't find a single Dipper anywhere suggesting they want a coalition with this spineless rump of a party formerly known as the Natural Governing Party.
Anyone? Bueller?
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Ignatieff and Goodale Need to Grow a Couple Pairs!
This is just bullshit! It's time for a damn election. I don't give a shit if Canadians give the Liberals 40 seats as a result. This government has made a mockery of the Canadian Parliament and parliamentarians in general. It's time for the Liberal Party of Canada to grow a set of nuts and stand up for SOMETHING for Gawdsake. ANYTHING! Why have deadlines if you can't even damned well enforce them?
It's embarrasing anymore. I feel sick to my stomach.
And This is Why Maurizio Bevilacqua Should Run for Mayor
I guess Denis Coderre still has a little cache.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose
That's how one Quebecer described the news that LPC(Q) President Marc Lavigne was being replaced by The Hon. Lucienne Robillard.
My guess is the real reason for the resignation was NOT his family. Maybe the Friday afternoon announcement makes me suspicious of such things.
My guess is the real reason for the resignation was NOT his family. Maybe the Friday afternoon announcement makes me suspicious of such things.
About This Coalition, Jean Chretien and Liberal Party Destruction
Liberals are officially spinning themselves into self destruction these days.
As a background to all of this, I offer up the Wiki on the last coalition circa 2008.
I tried to avoid the blogging of the "Coalition" here on this site. But yesterday I snapped. I had had just about enough of the redirect and juxtaposing on the issue.
I'm not certain at what point the Liberal Party members will drop the dialogue of the Dipper/Lib/non-Bloc pact, but I am certain that none of dialogue benefits the Liberal Party of Canada.
Jean Chretien said "If it's doable, let's do it." What Jean Chretien didn't say is whether or not he thought "it could be done." You know, like a proof is a proof when you have good proof, then it's a proof. Show me a quote where he said he's persuing any talks of a coalition, then I might believe it. And this quote from 2008 doesn't count:
That was then. It was after a brutal fiscal update taking away party funding and talking about nothing and a brutal election and just before a vote of non-confidence. Harper knew he screwed up and this coalition was a real option for Canadians. He prorogued. We turfed the leader.
The UK argument is beyond lame. First of all, in the UK coalition (which many speculate will not survive for an extended period), all the warring parties rallied their troops and went out to the battlefield. All of them proclaimed their sabres were bigger than the other guys. A whole bunch of sabre-rattling and some sword play ensued and then they asked the civilians how they thought the war was going.
The civilians then said, we have no appetite for a clear victor here and we are going to support all of you, now kiss and make peace. With that in mind and very much a reality, the parties THEN went to work to find out who they could "team up with" as an ally in the field. THEN an election was held and the result was exactly what the civilians were telling the parties.
THEN and only THEN did a coalition agreement come to pass. And, only after much negotiating with WILLING parties. It could still have been a BROWN government for all anybody knew, but smarter minds prevailed and Britain was temporarily appeased.
In addition, the coalition that was formed, was formed with the WINNING party and the third place party, not the second place party and the fourth place party. So Brits could live with that for a bit.
Here, in Canada, we have no such similar scenario. We were close in 2008. But nobody liked that idea. In fact, Liberals hated the idea so much they used it as part and party to get rid of their duly elected leader and skip a leadership battle to install its current leader. That leader immediately distanced himself from the coalition.
Last week that same leader's office issued talking points dismissing any possibility of coalition. In other words, the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada is saying, we are a Liberal Party, we are moving forward as one party focusing on the needs of Canadians. Will he changed his mind? Um, he's been known to so you never know.
The point is this dear Liberals, the perpetuation of the coalition talks from the members - Yes, Sam Lavoie, you ARE now an elected "senior Liberal" in your capacity -
is signalling to Canadians that you are just too damn weak to govern and you are admitting whole-heartedly that the Liberal Party of Canada can NOT beat Stephen Harper's Conservatives. And that, my friends is the reality of the situation.
I didn't sign on to be a member of the Liberal Democrat Party of Canada.
How about if we put together a platform and send it out to Canadians and let them be the judge of who they want. How about not throwing the environment away for another generation by voting down the omnibus budget bill. How about talking about that stuff. Win some seats first.
I have news for you friends, if you go to 40 seats, it ain't gonna matter who you try to make a coalition with, you're done for four more years.
But hey, if you're void of ideas or the notion we can put together something along the lines of Kelowna, Kyoto and Kids, I guess a coalition it is.
Anywho. Carry on.
As a background to all of this, I offer up the Wiki on the last coalition circa 2008.
I tried to avoid the blogging of the "Coalition" here on this site. But yesterday I snapped. I had had just about enough of the redirect and juxtaposing on the issue.
I'm not certain at what point the Liberal Party members will drop the dialogue of the Dipper/Lib/non-Bloc pact, but I am certain that none of dialogue benefits the Liberal Party of Canada.
Jean Chretien said "If it's doable, let's do it." What Jean Chretien didn't say is whether or not he thought "it could be done." You know, like a proof is a proof when you have good proof, then it's a proof. Show me a quote where he said he's persuing any talks of a coalition, then I might believe it. And this quote from 2008 doesn't count:
Former NDP leader Ed Broadbent had confirmed earlier in the day that he had been in talks with former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien about the possibility of a coalition stemming from disagreement with measures proposed in the government's fiscal update, delivered Thursday..
"I've talked to Mr. Chrétien. He and I both discussed what would be a good situation here for the people of Canada, for Parliament, and we'll see what happens," Broadbent told CBC News. He called the Conservatives' update a "joke."
That was then. It was after a brutal fiscal update taking away party funding and talking about nothing and a brutal election and just before a vote of non-confidence. Harper knew he screwed up and this coalition was a real option for Canadians. He prorogued. We turfed the leader.
The UK argument is beyond lame. First of all, in the UK coalition (which many speculate will not survive for an extended period), all the warring parties rallied their troops and went out to the battlefield. All of them proclaimed their sabres were bigger than the other guys. A whole bunch of sabre-rattling and some sword play ensued and then they asked the civilians how they thought the war was going.
The civilians then said, we have no appetite for a clear victor here and we are going to support all of you, now kiss and make peace. With that in mind and very much a reality, the parties THEN went to work to find out who they could "team up with" as an ally in the field. THEN an election was held and the result was exactly what the civilians were telling the parties.
THEN and only THEN did a coalition agreement come to pass. And, only after much negotiating with WILLING parties. It could still have been a BROWN government for all anybody knew, but smarter minds prevailed and Britain was temporarily appeased.
In addition, the coalition that was formed, was formed with the WINNING party and the third place party, not the second place party and the fourth place party. So Brits could live with that for a bit.
Here, in Canada, we have no such similar scenario. We were close in 2008. But nobody liked that idea. In fact, Liberals hated the idea so much they used it as part and party to get rid of their duly elected leader and skip a leadership battle to install its current leader. That leader immediately distanced himself from the coalition.
Former deputy prime minister John Manley asked that Dion resign immediately, saying it was incomprehensible that the public would accept Dion as prime minister after rejecting him a few weeks earlier in the general election. Manley also said that a leader was needed "whose first job is to rebuild the Liberal party rather than leading a coalition with the NDP."
Several other insiders advocated moving up the date of the party leadership vote, rather than have Dion remain leader for either a potential election or coalition, while leadership contenders Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae both agreed that Dion had to quit immediately. Dion initially scheduled his resignation for the party's leadership convention in May 2009, but on December 8, 2008, he announced that he would step down upon the selection of his successor.
Bob Rae, who helped to persuade the Liberal caucus of the power-sharing deal, took over as the coalition's spokesman and planned to travel throughout the country to promote the coalition. By contrast, Michael Ignatieff, the frontrunner to succeed Dion, was said to be uncomfortable with the idea of sharing power with the NDP and receiving committed support from the Bloc Québécois. Ignatieff said that there would be a "coalition if necessary, but not necessarily a coalition," noting that the coalition served a useful purpose by keeping the Conservatives in check, but warned that the Liberals should look over the budget before deciding.After the withdrawal of his two rivals, Ignatieff was left as the sole declared leadership candidate, so he was appointed interim leader, and his position is was ratified at the May 2009 convention.
Resolution
On December 12, Ignatieff met with Prime Minister Harper to discuss the budget, with their spokesmen describing it as a "cordial" meeting.
Layton and Duceppe remained committed to ousting the Harper government,pledging that the NDP would vote against the Conservative budget regardless of what it contained. Layton urged Ignatieff's Liberals to topple the Conservatives before the shelf life of the coalition expired; constitutional experts said that four months after the last election, if the government fell, the Governor General would likely grant the Prime Minister's request to dissolve parliament instead of inviting the coalition.
On January 28, 2009, the Liberals agreed to support the budget as long as it included regular accountability reports, and the Conservatives accepted this amendment. This ended the possibility of the coalition, so Layton said "Today we have learned that you can't trust Mr. Ignatieff to oppose Mr. Harper. If you oppose Mr. Harper and you want a new government, I urge you to support the NDP".
Last week that same leader's office issued talking points dismissing any possibility of coalition. In other words, the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada is saying, we are a Liberal Party, we are moving forward as one party focusing on the needs of Canadians. Will he changed his mind? Um, he's been known to so you never know.
The point is this dear Liberals, the perpetuation of the coalition talks from the members - Yes, Sam Lavoie, you ARE now an elected "senior Liberal" in your capacity -
is signalling to Canadians that you are just too damn weak to govern and you are admitting whole-heartedly that the Liberal Party of Canada can NOT beat Stephen Harper's Conservatives. And that, my friends is the reality of the situation.
I didn't sign on to be a member of the Liberal Democrat Party of Canada.
How about if we put together a platform and send it out to Canadians and let them be the judge of who they want. How about not throwing the environment away for another generation by voting down the omnibus budget bill. How about talking about that stuff. Win some seats first.
I have news for you friends, if you go to 40 seats, it ain't gonna matter who you try to make a coalition with, you're done for four more years.
But hey, if you're void of ideas or the notion we can put together something along the lines of Kelowna, Kyoto and Kids, I guess a coalition it is.
Anywho. Carry on.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
About Sam Lavoie "Leading Liberal Youth"
This is the Platform Sam Lavoie ran on when he was elected in a coin toss just one year ago.
I thought the premise behind the YLC was to recruit a new generation of Liberals and inspire, new, fresh ideas that represents future generations of Liberal Canadians. Speaking for all Liberal youth as he does, Mr. Lavoie did nobody in Liberaland any favours with his vociferous interview with Tabor.
Here's a thought Sam: Why don't you and your regional presidents go out there and concentrate on how to recruit new youth into our Liberal Party like you're supposed to be doing and leave the coalition stuff alone. Or, perhaps you can call up the the president of the youth Dippers and start a coalition at that level to show the big boys you mean business.
Sam also lead a youth movement at the National Convention that would have derailed the "One Member One Vote" motion. And as young BC Liberal President, Josh Hutchinson said to me in Windsor recently: "you should be killed" (in reference to my strong online fight against the Lavoie amendment to the motion). Now that's "LEADERSHIP"!
I'm not sure if Sam's coalition talk fits the bill for "uniting our party", but feel free to discuss. Below are Samuel's ideas for a platform and the youth amendment to the One Member One Vote that I fought to defeat.
My Preamble to opposition of the youth amendment and the youth amendment in its entirety. Notice the seconder of the amendment.
On April 3rd, 2009, the YLC National Executive voted to make an amendment to the One Member One Vote Constitutional Amendment going forward this month in Vancouver at the Liberal Party Bienniel Convention.
This YLC amendment demands a quota of 25% of the riding votes be set aside for youth only. In other words, if there were say 10 youth members in your riding association of 300 members, those 10 youth will have 25% of the vote from the riding.
Many Liberals have expressed their concern over this amendment. One of those concerns is that if the youth are allowed a 25% quota, why isn't the women's commission, the seniors commission and the Aboriginal commissions. Where does it end?
There is already a long journey ahead for the supporters of One Member One Vote to obtain a 66% majority at the convention. Now we're going to complicate the matter more by sticking in an amendment that could be debated for hours on end.
HERE'S WHAT THE YOUTH HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE ISSUE:
Preamble: “One Member, One Vote” Constitutional Package
History:
The Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) has historically recognized the under-representation of young people in the political process, which manifests itself in the establishment of the Young Liberals of Canada (YLC) Commission. The Young Liberals are the heart of the Party; its strength, its energy, and its manpower. Approximately, one third, or 33% of all delegate spots are reserved for youth delegates under the current leadership system of LPC.
Problem:
At the upcoming 2009 Leadership and Biennial Convention in Vancouver, there is a constitutional amendment being presented by the National Executive of the Liberal Party to reform the leadership selection method. The proposed change is a one member one vote (OMOV) system. Under the new system, each riding would be allocated 100 points which would be distributed by percentage of the vote per leadership candidate (i.e. if Candidate X gets 50% of the votes in a riding, he will be allocated 50 points). As the amendment currently stands, there is no provision to account for the under-representation of youth in the Party. This proposal is problematic for both the Young Liberals organization and the Liberal Party as a whole.
While some may argue that this defeats the whole purpose of OMOV, we argue that OMOV defeats the purpose of having YLC to preserve and protect the youth voice in LPC—a voice that continues to be heard, respected, and fights for what matters most to young, progressive Liberals. We owe this to all Young Liberals of the past, present, and future. Young Liberals of yesterday and today have worked and fought hard for our commission and the presence we have in LPC and we owe nothing less to those of tomorrow so that they may have a home in the Party, just as we have had for years and years.
Solution:
The YLC is proposing an amendment to the amendment to allot a minimum of 25 points to youth voters in each federal riding in order to maintain our representation in LPC. This amendment would translate to having separate youth ballot boxes at a leadership vote in every riding, and the votes would be tallied separately and given a minimum of 25/100 points in that riding. However, if the percentage of youth exceeds 25%, the larger number will be counted.
Proposed LPC amendment:
(a) Delete section 56 and replace it with the following:
(1) The Leadership Vote is a direct vote of all members of the Party who have a right to vote on the Leadership Vote weighted equally for each electoral district in Canada and counted in accordance with this Section.
(2) Every member of the Party who ordinarily lives in Canada has the right to vote on the Leadership Vote, if that member has –
(a) been a member of the Party for the 41 days immediately preceding the day of the Leadership Vote;
(b) paid the registration fee (if any) for the Leadership Vote established by the National Executive;
(c) complied with the registration procedures established by the National Executive or by the Leadership Vote Committee.
(3) At least 27 days before the day of the Leadership Vote, the National Executive must publish on the public website of the Party the registration procedures for the Leadership Vote.
(4) Each member of the Party who has a right to vote on the Leadership Vote may vote by a preferential ballot on which the voter indicates their preference for leadership contestants. A ballot is not spoiled because the voter has not indicated a preference for all leadership contestants.
(5) The ballots must be counted, under the direction of the Chief Electoral Officer appointed under Subsection 56(6), in accordance with the following procedure (that is illustrated in Appendix B):
(a) Each electoral district is allocated 100 points.
(b) On the first count:
(i) for each electoral district, the first preference votes recorded in favour of leadership contestants on the ballots cast by the members of the Party who live in that electoral district are counted and then the 100 points allocated to the electoral district are allocated to each leadership contestant on the basis of the ratio the number of the first preference votes received by that leadership contestant bears to the total number of votes counted;
(ii) the total number of points allocated to each leadership contestant from all electoral districts in Canada are added to produce a total for the “national count”.
(c) On the second count, the leadership contestant who received the least points on the first national count is eliminated and that leadership contestant’s first count ballots are distributed in each electoral district among the remaining leadership contestants according to the second preferences indicated and counted according to the procedure set out in Subparagraph 56(a)(i) as if they were first preference votes.
(d) On each subsequent count, the leadership contestant who received the least votes in the preceding count is eliminated, and that leadership contestant’s ballots are distributed among the remaining leadership contestants according to the next preferences indicated.
(e) The first leadership contestant to receive more than 50% of the points allocated on any national count is selected as the Leader.
(6) The Leadership Vote Committee and the National Executive must jointly appoint a Chief Electoral Officer who will be responsible to make all arrangements necessary for the conduct of the balloting on the Leadership Vote and adjudicate all disputes over accreditation and the right to vote on the Leadership Vote.
(7) The Chief Electoral Officer appointed under Subsection 56(6) must act independently of the National Executive and each of the leadership contestants.
Proposed YLC amendment to the LPC amendment
Under section 56(5)(a) of the proposed LPC amendment, add the following:
(i) No less than 25 of the 100 points shall be allocated to members aged 25 or less.
Motion – YLC National Executive Meeting, April 3rd, 2009.
Be it resolved that the YLC National executive adopt the proposed amendment as outlined above to be presented to the Constitutional Plenary at the 2009 Leadership and Biennial Convention of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Moved by: Scott Pickup, Legal and Constitutional Affairs Representative
Seconded by: Samuel Lavoie, VP Policy
Passed: Unanimously
I thought the premise behind the YLC was to recruit a new generation of Liberals and inspire, new, fresh ideas that represents future generations of Liberal Canadians. Speaking for all Liberal youth as he does, Mr. Lavoie did nobody in Liberaland any favours with his vociferous interview with Tabor.
Here's a thought Sam: Why don't you and your regional presidents go out there and concentrate on how to recruit new youth into our Liberal Party like you're supposed to be doing and leave the coalition stuff alone. Or, perhaps you can call up the the president of the youth Dippers and start a coalition at that level to show the big boys you mean business.
Sam also lead a youth movement at the National Convention that would have derailed the "One Member One Vote" motion. And as young BC Liberal President, Josh Hutchinson said to me in Windsor recently: "you should be killed" (in reference to my strong online fight against the Lavoie amendment to the motion). Now that's "LEADERSHIP"!
I'm not sure if Sam's coalition talk fits the bill for "uniting our party", but feel free to discuss. Below are Samuel's ideas for a platform and the youth amendment to the One Member One Vote that I fought to defeat.
Dear Friends,
It’s time for change within the Young Liberals. It’s time for fresh ideas, strong leadership, and solid cross-Canada unity, which will allow the Liberal Party to defeat Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. It’s time for us to change Canada.
Welcome to the online home of my Campaign for Young Liberal Change - a chance for you to get involved in shaping the direction of our youth commission, our party, our country and our future.
I am currently serving as YLC Vice President for Policy, and I have decided to run for President of the Young Liberals of Canada because I am convinced that our nation’s youth are not satisfied with the status quo. I envision our commission as the vehicle for the progress we seek as Canadians, and I believe that working together our Party is the best advocate for our ideas and our dreams.
We need leadership that shares those dreams and that idealism - leadership that has the courage to reinforce our convictions with meaningful action, enthusiasm and passion, while maintaining a commitment to unity within our party. This is what the role of young Liberals should be: to have the courage to reject the politics of division, and focus on a greater vision.
I believe that I can be this leader. My passion for this country knows no boundaries. I joined this party because I came to the conclusion that when it focuses on its core values, it represents one of the most important institutions in Canada. We’ve proven it in the past and it is now our duty to prove it once again. I think the role of the YLC is often underestimated. I believe in a YLC that is a dedicated youth lobby, a YLC that reaches outside of its traditional circles, a YLC that is independent enough to deliver on the ideas and innovation of its members, yet one that works with the party towards progress. In short, a YLC that matters.
In the last few months, our campaign has been blessed with a lot of support from BC to Newfoundland, in all provinces and territories. I want to thank everyone for their faith in me and their help at this critical time in our party’s history. What has brought together so many Young Liberals from different backgrounds and different regions is the fact that we are truly like-minded. We are like-minded in our passion for our country, like-minded in our unwavering commitment to this party and like-minded in our belief that the Young Liberals of Canada can and must spearhead the change that will bring about the new Liberal era. My supporters and I hope you will join us on this exciting journey towards Young Liberal Change.
Please use this group frequently and email your ideas, questions and suggestions directly to Sam at samuel@samlavoie.ca , and make Sam Lavoie's campaign your campaign too!
My Preamble to opposition of the youth amendment and the youth amendment in its entirety. Notice the seconder of the amendment.
On April 3rd, 2009, the YLC National Executive voted to make an amendment to the One Member One Vote Constitutional Amendment going forward this month in Vancouver at the Liberal Party Bienniel Convention.
This YLC amendment demands a quota of 25% of the riding votes be set aside for youth only. In other words, if there were say 10 youth members in your riding association of 300 members, those 10 youth will have 25% of the vote from the riding.
Many Liberals have expressed their concern over this amendment. One of those concerns is that if the youth are allowed a 25% quota, why isn't the women's commission, the seniors commission and the Aboriginal commissions. Where does it end?
There is already a long journey ahead for the supporters of One Member One Vote to obtain a 66% majority at the convention. Now we're going to complicate the matter more by sticking in an amendment that could be debated for hours on end.
HERE'S WHAT THE YOUTH HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE ISSUE:
Preamble: “One Member, One Vote” Constitutional Package
History:
The Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) has historically recognized the under-representation of young people in the political process, which manifests itself in the establishment of the Young Liberals of Canada (YLC) Commission. The Young Liberals are the heart of the Party; its strength, its energy, and its manpower. Approximately, one third, or 33% of all delegate spots are reserved for youth delegates under the current leadership system of LPC.
Problem:
At the upcoming 2009 Leadership and Biennial Convention in Vancouver, there is a constitutional amendment being presented by the National Executive of the Liberal Party to reform the leadership selection method. The proposed change is a one member one vote (OMOV) system. Under the new system, each riding would be allocated 100 points which would be distributed by percentage of the vote per leadership candidate (i.e. if Candidate X gets 50% of the votes in a riding, he will be allocated 50 points). As the amendment currently stands, there is no provision to account for the under-representation of youth in the Party. This proposal is problematic for both the Young Liberals organization and the Liberal Party as a whole.
While some may argue that this defeats the whole purpose of OMOV, we argue that OMOV defeats the purpose of having YLC to preserve and protect the youth voice in LPC—a voice that continues to be heard, respected, and fights for what matters most to young, progressive Liberals. We owe this to all Young Liberals of the past, present, and future. Young Liberals of yesterday and today have worked and fought hard for our commission and the presence we have in LPC and we owe nothing less to those of tomorrow so that they may have a home in the Party, just as we have had for years and years.
Solution:
The YLC is proposing an amendment to the amendment to allot a minimum of 25 points to youth voters in each federal riding in order to maintain our representation in LPC. This amendment would translate to having separate youth ballot boxes at a leadership vote in every riding, and the votes would be tallied separately and given a minimum of 25/100 points in that riding. However, if the percentage of youth exceeds 25%, the larger number will be counted.
Proposed LPC amendment:
(a) Delete section 56 and replace it with the following:
(1) The Leadership Vote is a direct vote of all members of the Party who have a right to vote on the Leadership Vote weighted equally for each electoral district in Canada and counted in accordance with this Section.
(2) Every member of the Party who ordinarily lives in Canada has the right to vote on the Leadership Vote, if that member has –
(a) been a member of the Party for the 41 days immediately preceding the day of the Leadership Vote;
(b) paid the registration fee (if any) for the Leadership Vote established by the National Executive;
(c) complied with the registration procedures established by the National Executive or by the Leadership Vote Committee.
(3) At least 27 days before the day of the Leadership Vote, the National Executive must publish on the public website of the Party the registration procedures for the Leadership Vote.
(4) Each member of the Party who has a right to vote on the Leadership Vote may vote by a preferential ballot on which the voter indicates their preference for leadership contestants. A ballot is not spoiled because the voter has not indicated a preference for all leadership contestants.
(5) The ballots must be counted, under the direction of the Chief Electoral Officer appointed under Subsection 56(6), in accordance with the following procedure (that is illustrated in Appendix B):
(a) Each electoral district is allocated 100 points.
(b) On the first count:
(i) for each electoral district, the first preference votes recorded in favour of leadership contestants on the ballots cast by the members of the Party who live in that electoral district are counted and then the 100 points allocated to the electoral district are allocated to each leadership contestant on the basis of the ratio the number of the first preference votes received by that leadership contestant bears to the total number of votes counted;
(ii) the total number of points allocated to each leadership contestant from all electoral districts in Canada are added to produce a total for the “national count”.
(c) On the second count, the leadership contestant who received the least points on the first national count is eliminated and that leadership contestant’s first count ballots are distributed in each electoral district among the remaining leadership contestants according to the second preferences indicated and counted according to the procedure set out in Subparagraph 56(a)(i) as if they were first preference votes.
(d) On each subsequent count, the leadership contestant who received the least votes in the preceding count is eliminated, and that leadership contestant’s ballots are distributed among the remaining leadership contestants according to the next preferences indicated.
(e) The first leadership contestant to receive more than 50% of the points allocated on any national count is selected as the Leader.
(6) The Leadership Vote Committee and the National Executive must jointly appoint a Chief Electoral Officer who will be responsible to make all arrangements necessary for the conduct of the balloting on the Leadership Vote and adjudicate all disputes over accreditation and the right to vote on the Leadership Vote.
(7) The Chief Electoral Officer appointed under Subsection 56(6) must act independently of the National Executive and each of the leadership contestants.
Proposed YLC amendment to the LPC amendment
Under section 56(5)(a) of the proposed LPC amendment, add the following:
(i) No less than 25 of the 100 points shall be allocated to members aged 25 or less.
Motion – YLC National Executive Meeting, April 3rd, 2009.
Be it resolved that the YLC National executive adopt the proposed amendment as outlined above to be presented to the Constitutional Plenary at the 2009 Leadership and Biennial Convention of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Moved by: Scott Pickup, Legal and Constitutional Affairs Representative
Seconded by: Samuel Lavoie, VP Policy
Passed: Unanimously
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
