Visionseeker

Willams is a smart guy. Smart enough to recognize that the price of oil is fickle and its age might soon be at an end. He'd like to believe that off shore drilling can save his province's economy, but he's not so stupid as to believe that his one basket of eggs can quickly become an omelette. Now answer me this. If income taxes are relaxed in favour of consumption taxes, how can a voluntary taxation system tax someone "to the hilt"? That's rich coming from a supporter of "put Harper in a sweater and make him appear with his and others kids to pull on the heart-strings of suburban women" or "throw teens into adult prisons because while they rarely kill people, they lead in the media when they do, so we can appeal to voter outrage". The scary Harper is the emotional manipulator we've seen. Harper is supported by "park your brain" people. And that is very scary. All parties have logical positions which they advance to encourage electoral support. But the right wing always uses the bulk of logic defying, appeal to emotion, reality obfuscating tactics.

If I might bud-in... Ontario is NOT "fairly conservative". In 2006, the Conservatives managed 35% of the vote. That means that 65% of the electorate opted for a label other than a conservative one. Out west it is true that Alberta is conservative by majority, but everywhere else, only a plurality can be claimed. Up until 1984 they could. And you can blame conscription for that. but it has been a full 24 years since the Liberals won a majority of seats in Quebec. Wow! You really think that the Quebec seats under Chrétien were bought. That placing CANADA signs at cultural events and enriching a dozen ad men prompted millions of Quebecs to vote Liberal? No, you probably don't. You probably choose to simply "believe it" so that you can shroud more sinister beliefs. More historical disconnect. Mulroney created the Bloc (guess that makes you a big fan of Mulroney). The Liberals have been their only credible competition. It's democracy in action, unlike in Alberta where it's been one party all the time. Who's being politically obtuse? You can add the Maritimes and NFLD to your list of strongholds. Your "one Tory party" may presently enjoy a small plurality. But ask yourself where your brand would stand if our electoral system demanded a majority via a run-off system. Uh-huh. So quit trying to project strength from weakness. The merger of the right does nothing to change the reality that the right is a minority in this country.

With all due respect, this statement reveals that you don't understand Quebec. Dion's "fathering" the Clarity Act simply tells Quebeckers what they already knew: Dion is a federalist. What does that mean? It means he'll never get Pauline Marois or Gilles Duceppe's vote. Neither would Rae or Ignatieff for that matter. Dion's task in Quebec is similar to what Chrétien encountered in 93. He needs to convince Quebec federalists that he's a genuine leader who has Quebec's interests at heart while running against an increasingly unpopular government. The main difference is that Chrétien had more time to make his case. Dion will improve Liberal fortunes in Quebec on the 14th. 5 to 7 more seats are easily within reach. If instead he land 10 to 12 more, he will have done the most anyone could expect with the Liberal brand in Quebec. The only thing that might reverse this trend would be the Conservative platform promising to re-open the Constitution. If that were to happen, Quebec could indeed go blue, but the rest of the country would probably go ape-shit crazy.

Your emphasis on regionalism trumping ideology is true on balence, but ideology remains an important secondary influence. Mulroney managed that bridge. But that strengthens the following theory I have about the Liberal and Conservative approaches to Quebec: Conservatives try to find out want Quebec wants, Liberals look for what Quebec needs. The former engages in promises it cannot deliver, the latter soberly makes a case to govern. Harper's third mistake in Quebec was to speak of "the steady hand". In Quebec, that's a Liberal trademark.

What? So you're saying that conflict of interest rules need not apply when the gift is from a foreign head of state!? Really? Dear President Hu Jintao, I would like to thank you on behalf of myself and my wife Lauren for the elegant set of Ming dynasty vases you had your ambassador deliver to us this morning. Lauren is quite enamoured and has become rather protective of the pieces – oh, poor choice of words – protective of the works I should say. Seems Ben will need to practice his stick-handling somewhere other than the halls of 24 Sussex from now on. LOL! As for other matters, I am pleased to hear that your “Big Oil” guys are having such success in acquiring additional interests in and around Athabaska. When you guys set your mind to something, you really set your mind to something. Lastly, I wanted to let you know that we have looked over the materials you sent us on the Dalai Lama and I must admit that he never struck me as a violent person. All the same, if you say he’s a bomb maker, who am I to argue? Yours truly Signed, Stephen

By the odds, I would suspect that the perps are more likely to be conservative "supporters". However a statistically driven suspicion is not proof and, even if it were, it wouldn't be fair to paint all CPC supporters as homicidal wing-nuts. All parties have a history of attracting some of the worst members of society. The Tories might have a little more than their fair share thanks to elements on the ultra-wing of the party, but I think most of the party views these episodes with a measure of abhorrence and disgust equal to your own (the Liberal "Black-Ops" theorists notwithstanding).

Wow! That's a really small minor league for team tory. I hadn't seen those numbers before. Adding to their pain is this Ipsos analysis: Post debate analysis "Impressions among those who watched a debate improved or stayed the same for all party leaders – except Prime Minister Stephen Harper." and further down: "Only 13% of those who witnessed a debate say that their vote preference changed as a result of what they saw. Those changing their mind most often say they will vote Liberal (36%). Half say they would vote either for the Greens (26%) or the NDP (26%), while just 13% say they would vote Conservative. Just 4% who watched a debate say they would switch their vote to the Bloc Quebecois." Two things to note: first, only about one in eight viewers say the debates changed their preference. But that's actually a large number when you realize that the vast majority of viewers of political debates tend to be highly partisan to a given political party. Often times, more than two-thirds of viewers can be regarded as fully committed. However, without the benefit of this being measured by Ipsos, I am merely guessing that a third of soft voters changed their minds following the debate. Second, while Harper is clearly on the losing end of the switching dynamic, it is possible that the phenomenon will not translate to the elcetorate as a whole. But recent trends are indeed showing significant declines in Conservative support. Nanos' numbers suggest that the tory train has fallen completely off the tracks in Quebec; meaning that growth is highly unlikely and 8 or even all 10 of the seats they gained in 2006 could fall, shutting them out off Quebec completely. It's never a good thing when a survey's results leave you hoping that the numbers are simply wrong. And I'm sure that's exactly what they're doing in Harper land as they pour over this Ipsos study.

Take that as nothing more than a "I'm in this to win" pronouncement. If Dion improves substantively on 2006, he’ll fight to stick around. If he has rejuvenated the party’s fortunes in Quebec through such improvement, there will be little credible talk of his resignation. Should Dion fail, he will be pushed aside and the party will choose Iggy, Rae or someone else in yet another costly leadership contest. There will be no coronation. It is 4%, my bad. Harris-Decima had the Libs at 24%, not Nik. Indeed, if Nik's numbers are real, Harper is getting further and further from majority territory. Ipsos was a consistent outlier in 2004. They tended to favour the Conservatives some 2 to 3 points more than any other outfit throughout the campaign. Nanos and one of the firms beginning with the letter "E" (I'm not being cryptic here, just can't remember which firm it was) tended to capture the reality a little better. Ipsos' problem might very well have been bias (where is Darrell Bricker advising lately?), but I suspect they just had thier demographics model wrong.

If Dion underperforms 2006, he is done. But a simple hand-over to Ignatieff won't be possible b/c the Rae camp will have something to say about it. And the Liberals will engage in their 3rd civil war in 3 decades. But if Dion matches or improves on 2006 and holds Harper to a minority, it will be because he seriously rehabilitated the Liberal brand in Quebec (it certainly won't be from turning the prairies red, that's for sure). Nanos has the Libs jumping 6 points nationally in one day (from 24 to 30%) and 7 points in Quebec at the apparent expense of both the Bloc and Conservatives. Now, if these number are an accurate representation, then it's a good bet that Dion's French language debate performance has seriously strengthened his image in his home province. If this boost has any momentum, watch the "Kumbya" vote kick-in (i.e. Ontario and maritime voters who instinctively vote for the federalist party that is most popular in Quebec. That's not a scenario that has Dion stepping down. Rather, his hold on the party would be dramatically strengthened. We'll have to wait and see if Nanos' results are repeated elsewhere. I've been told that another firm has opted to hold a release and over- sample because they lacked confidence in their results - a polling behaviour sometimes adopted when the initial numbers dramatically defy conventional wisdom.

Hear, Hear!

In Quebec, the talk won't be about Dion's "dithering", but rather why Harper hasn't dumped the Opus Dei candidate in St. Hubert. IOW, Bedard will be seen as the embarasment that had to go. But talk at the water cooler will still be "Opus Dei! that's just #$%& crazy!" Quebec is going to be an interesting contest.

Riding the bus this evening in the Nation's Capital, I overheard two men in uniform: Unifrom one: "Forget suspended, he should've been fired." Uniform two: "Or maybe shot." Harper has slowly been losing friends in the military for some time now. Sparrow might have just thrown gasoline on that trend.

Nanos nailed both the 2004 and 2006 elections. Still, I'm surprised at the results reflecting strategic voting so early in the race. It could be an outlier. But if it isn't Harper is in big trouble. Low NDP and Green numbers suggest that the left is swinging to Dion to counter Harper. If Nanos is right, Harper is facing a perfect storm. Anecdotally, a committed separatist I've known for years told me he's voting for Dion because Harper's links to the ADQ make him nervous. Quebec could be a contest that defies the conventional wisdom.

The 1, and then another 1% cut in the GST only served to impoverish the federal treasury. What savings did you realize? It took the CPC a two years before they re-implemented Martin's income tax cuts. Frankly, I'm sick of being taxed on what I earn, tax me on what I spend. Drop income taxes and raise the GST (or some other consumption vehicle like a carbon tax). Tax me when I spend, not when I earn.

I call bull sh!t! No police officer goes through the myriad of paper work involved in a sexual offense charge (and meets with the crown attorney) for a simple matter of urinating in public. It would be a career limiting move in the extreme.

Oh really. And have you shared this information with the RCMP? If not, perhaps I should direct them to this board so that they can follow-up with you.

As you already know by the title: TSX Down 488 points in commodities collapse As alluded to in the description: OPEC cuts production Coming in the wake of the US government's seizure of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, these two events will have lasting consequences. First, the Mac and Mae development tells us that foreign underwriters are giving up on bolstering the credit driven nature of the US economy. Second, with the collapse of the commodities market, we see that China is curtailing its appetite. Third, the OPEC cut is nothing more than an attempt to push up prices in the face of declining demand. The global economy is broken my friends. The scramble has begun. Harper may be wishing tonight that he'd called an election earlier. Because the bad news is going to get worse almost each and every day until October 14. Personally, I don't blame the PM. For I understand economics much better than he does and knew this day was coming when the Republicans killed important financial safeguards in 2002. It was only a matter of time. Nevertheless, Harper will be facing more and more dire economic news while he runs for re-election. While a certain measure of coordinated spin could save his minority, he should forget any idea of a majority. The possibility of the Conservatives losing has gained significant traction.

CTV reports that Harper may ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament on September 5: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories This would initiate a general election and negate four by-elections set for the month of September. Harper contends that Parliament has become too "dysfunctional" to continue. But it doesn't take a Nobel Prize in economics to see a much more pedestrian motive at work. Two recent announcements shed some light on the basic math. First, the government announced that a second quarter surplus not only erased the deficit recorded in the first quarter, but left a $1.2 billion cumulative surplus in its place. Defying the conventional wisdom of many economists. http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/08/22/junesurplus.html How? Well one need only look at another recent announcement to get the answer: http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1074911.html "$2.1 billion project quietly cancelled because of cost" That's right, the supply ships were dropped so that $2.1 billion could be pulled from future spending to prevent a mid- October headline reading "Government posts $2 billion deficit in the second quarter". It's called Ernie Eves' accounting. And voters in Ontario are apt to smell it. The campaign could indeed shake-up what we see in the polls, but I would bet that a Conservative majority isn't in the cards if the contest goes this fall. A weakened minority is their best case scenario. But playing defense in September is all they got. For an Obama win in November combined with worsening economic news here would innevitably elavate Liberal fortunes if the contest runs later.

Cue the Comic book guy: "Best...reply...ever" Hats off guyser. I almost, ALMOST spit out my beer when I read that.

Bwahahaha! Bush II is not despised!? His approval ratings are the lowest ever recorded. Do you suppose this stems from a mild dislike?

Great post. It really is refreshing when someone criticizes their own political brand. It renews my hope that we are not simply a bunch of ideological driftwood in this country.

Nail, head, hammer...Bang!

Justice is the anti-thesis to democracy. It is the notion that fairness must override individual or communal whim. The “laws of the land” are free to come from the people. But it falls to the court to ensure that those laws are indeed fair. The majority may dictate that left-handed people conform to the right-handed or have their left hand chopped off, but he court shall (and must) intervene to declare such provisions as invalid. Having the people determine who shall serve on the bench nullifies any judicial safe guard.

I'll do you one better: nearly all stem from poverty. You insist on fighting symptoms rather than the disease. And that is why you, and society fails.

Interesting. Listen, I have this nagging pain in my thigh after I jog for more than 30 minutes, how might I fix this? I suspect you are no more qualified to address this medical issue than you are in addressing correctional policies. Gang activity will not be dissuaded by mandatory sentences for the simple reason that gangs fill vacancies with amazing efficiency. Like any pest, a gang adapts and grows stronger from any superficial means used to combat them. Just as a colony of roaches stands unaffected by the squishing of one of its members, a gang is largely unbowed by law enforcement pecking-off individual colours. The solution to gangs is two fold: leadership and environment. If you truly want to put a gang out of business, you have to bring down its leaders and change the environment in which the gang operates. These can only be accomplished through effective infiltration coinciding with well thought-out community outreach activities.