What direction the Conservatives Should Take

[The_Squid]

By contrast, Michelle Rempel made a fool of herself by getting so angry with John McCallum's harmless joke about his own appearance:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-mccallum-rempel-joke-1.3620841

It was certainly a bit foolish to get angry about his joke after she makes a snide remark about photo ops.

Cut the snide remarks out of your "serious questions" and you may get a more serious reply.

[Newfoundlander]

Yes, I would actually. If you listen to his additional reply to her question you'll see he clearly distinguished between his responses to her question and to her remark about photo-ops. Smirky Rempel started the smart-alecky stuff there as she often does. On Power and Politics, we have had to endure ten years of snide remarks from Rempelsmirksin. One of her fave starters is 'I'm curious' when she is not curious at all but is preparing to be sarcastic. A little more of the self-effacing humour of Mr. McCallum would do her image no harm at all. She's much cockier than Ambrose, Raitt or Leitch.

I guess we should have given Paul Calandra a free pass when he didn't answer questions in the House.

Cockier? Maybe she's confident? As she should be.

[Icebound]

"It is not an "illusion" that the wealth which IS being created, is being held in increasingly fewer hands,"

Not actually true in Canada, and hasn't been for ten years. Income inequality has been narrowing, not widening, thanks to the Conservatives.

Oh, REALLY????

Where do do get THAT information? http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/hot-topics/caninequality.aspx suggests quite the opposite.

Anyway, WEALTH inequality is even more important than income inequality.

And YES, government policies DO help mitigate. Which kind of makes my previous point about the greater complexities of 21st century society vs "smaller" government.

...

[Argus]

Oh, REALLY????

Where do do get THAT information?

Regardless of what measure of income you use (market, total or after-tax) or which threshold you use (top 10 per cent, five per cent, one per cent, 0.1 per cent, 0.01 per cent) you get the same answer: top-end income shares peaked in 2006 and have been declining ever since

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/stephen-gordon-despite-what-the-attack-ads-say-incomes-at-the-very-top-have-fallen-since-harper-took-power

Mr. Stanford and Mr. Brennan rank the Harper government second-last on income inequality, based on the average share of income held by the top 1 per cent of Canadians between 2006 and 2012. But Statistics Canada reported that the top 1 per cent’s share peaked at 12.1 per cent in 2006, the year Mr. Harper took office, and declined thereafter to reach 10.3 per cent in 2012.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/judge-harpers-economic-record-by-the-hand-he-was-dealt/article25867267/

[?Impact]

I guess we should have given Paul Calandra a free pass when he didn't answer questions in the House.

This was one question, not every single question asked every single day until he finally broke down in tears. Rempel got the answer she deserved, if she asked the question as a serious question and not some snarky mocking manner like she did then perhaps a serious reply would have followed.

[Peter F]

" Don't stay at it year after year claiming pogey for much of the year and expecting me to pay you to sit around on your ass."

I do expect such and - thanks very much - you are paying me to do so. I am very pleased and equally grateful for your contributions.

[SpankyMcFarland]

I guess we should have given Paul Calandra a free pass when he didn't answer questions in the House.

Cockier? Maybe she's confident? As she should be.

Anybody at that level has talent and she has lots of it, clearly, but she needs to lose those sharp edges. Right now, for me, she comes across as arrogant.

BTW that comparison is a little dubious. McCallum answered the substantive question AND responded to her lame joke with a better one. By contrast, Calandra embarrassed himself and Parliament with a reply that was completely irrelevant. No MP should be allowed to get away with that.

[Icebound]

Regardless of what measure of income you use (market, total or after-tax) or which threshold you use (top 10 per cent, five per cent, one per cent, 0.1 per cent, 0.01 per cent) you get the same answer: top-end income shares peaked in 2006 and have been declining ever since

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/stephen-gordon-despite-what-the-attack-ads-say-incomes-at-the-very-top-have-fallen-since-harper-took-power

Mr. Stanford and Mr. Brennan rank the Harper government second-last on income inequality, based on the average share of income held by the top 1 per cent of Canadians between 2006 and 2012. But Statistics Canada reported that the top 1 per cent’s share peaked at 12.1 per cent in 2006, the year Mr. Harper took office, and declined thereafter to reach 10.3 per cent in 2012.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/judge-harpers-economic-record-by-the-hand-he-was-dealt/article25867267/

Yeah, I can quote the Toronto Star and the Broadbent Institute and they will say something different.

But Stats-Can themselves, say something different:

Between 1999 and 2012, average income rose at more or less the same pace for the middle three quintiles (between 14% and 16%). The increase was slightly lower (8%) among families in the bottom quintile and somewhat higher (22%) among those in the top quintile. Hence, in 2012, the average income of families in the top quintile was 13.3 times the average level of those in the bottom, compared with 11.7 times in 1999. The ratio of income for families in the top quintile to that of those in the middle quintile changed little (from 3.0 in 1999 to 3.2 in 2012).Note8 Similar results were found when median income values rather than average values were examined.Note9

Between 1999 and 2012, average net worth increased in all income quintiles, but rose faster in the top two income quintiles. The average net worth increased by 80% for families in the top income quintile—from $721,900 to $1.3 million. In comparison, the average net worth among families in the middle quintile rose by 73% (from $261,800 to $453,300), and by 38% among families in the bottom quintile (from $79,500 to $109,300). As a result, families in the top quintile had 11.9 times the level of wealth of families in the bottom quintile in 2012—up from 9.1 times in 1999.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-006-x/2015001/article/14194-eng.htm

...

[Newfoundlander]

This was one question, not every single question asked every single day until he finally broke down in tears. Rempel got the answer she deserved, if she asked the question as a serious question and not some snarky mocking manner like she did then perhaps a serious reply would have followed.

So Calandra needed to be funnier to get away with it.

[Newfoundlander]

Anybody at that level has talent and she has lots of it, clearly, but she needs to lose those sharp edges. Right now, for me, she comes across as arrogant.

BTW that comparison is a little dubious. McCallum answered the substantive question AND responded to her lame joke with a better one. By contrast, Calandra embarrassed himself and Parliament with a reply that was completely irrelevant. No MP should be allowed to get away with that.

Have never noticed Rempel being arrogant. But I'm not biased towards her so that might be the difference.

[PIK]

Nobody has embarrassed parliament more then the PM himself in the last 6 months.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Have never noticed Rempel being arrogant. But I'm not biased towards her so that might be the difference.

I don't like her, mainly because of her manner. Take a look at the some of the old Power and Politcs episodes and see if that changes your mind.

The evidence on the McCallum episode is very clear for all to see, though. Rempel behaved like a petulant child, even trying to drag the Speaker into a moment of harmless fun. I'm sure her rivals are quietly pleased. She's smart, pretty and young.

The whole episode is extremely minor, not even a one-day story, but I would like to see Rempel laugh at herself a little more. Most successful politicians have that capacity.

Edited June 9, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

I guess we should have given Paul Calandra a free pass when he didn't answer questions in the House.

Cockier? Maybe she's confident? As she should be.

Calandra allowed himself to play the fool in the House. If this kind of eejitry is permitted to proliferate with every party, Parliament will become irrelevant. Nobody is going to watch stupid answers to sensible questions.

[dre]

Calandra allowed himself to play the fool in the House. If this kind of eejitry is permitted to proliferate with every party, Parliament will become irrelevant. Nobody is going to watch stupid answers to sensible questions.

The speaker should have a mandate to force people to answer the questions and force politicians to behave at LEAST as well as third graders.

[Argus]

Yeah, I can quote the Toronto Star and the Broadbent Institute and they will say something different.

But Stats-Can themselves, say something different:

You didn't read the quotes, did you. They quoted Stats Canada and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, both of whom are considerably more neutral than anything you're likely to post.

[PIK]

Look at the leader of the green party, made a complete ass out of herself and she still is leader.