The Canadian Federal Election will probably be October 14th

[Wezil]

Originally posted by notyoueither




First, you assume a lot about people without knowing too much. At least you are consistent in the habit.

Seems to me you are doing in this post exactly what you are condemning.

Yes, I assume you are a Conservative party supporter. Why? I've read enough of your political posts over the years to reach that conclusion. I take you as a red tory.

Second, rational is not the first word that comes to mind when I read what you write about Harper. I have some problems with him how the new party has run, but I'm not the raging cynic that you seem to require as the mark of a reasoned individual.

I don't like the man and make no bones about it. Openness/accountability/ethics were my big issues before the last vote (the vote when Harper was riding the white horse and campaigning on these very issues). If other issues were more important to others then they would not likely be sharing my perception but this wouldn't necessarily mean they aren't "rational".

Anyway, if you don't want to discuss what I asked that is okay.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Flubber
Coalition government? It seems that what Wezil is contemplating is far less than a coalition but prhaps much more than a second place party taking the reins of power and merely hoping to have the support of the thrid place party.

What I had in mind was this:

The 1985 election resulted in a minority parliament, in which the Tories held four more seats than David Peterson's Liberals, but were eleven seats short of a majority. After a series of negotiations, begun by a phone call from Rae to Peterson shortly after election day, Rae and Peterson signed a "Liberal-NDP Accord" in which the NDP agreed to support a Liberal government in office for two years. The Liberals, in turn, agreed to implement some policies favoured by the NDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Rae#1985_election_and_the_Liberal-NDP_Accord

Agreeing to support a minority government for a specified length of time (contingent upon policy implementation) is more than your usual "minority government" where every vote holds the potential for defeat.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Asher

It's not copied. The majority is original content.

But it is also very obvious lines were lifted, sometimes verbatim:

Comparison doc:

http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/08093...r_howard_e.pdf

I didn't look at the comparison doc but it sounds as if a speechwriter lifted a few lines. Harper probably didn't know but even if he did . .. . is it that bad to copy a particularly effective turn of phrase?

I just don't see the big deal on this or on some liberal using a few words spoken by Suzuki

[Asher]

It's a desperation plight that is working for the Liberals, at least in Ontario.

The comment count on articles on CBC, The Star, G&M, etc is explosive.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Come back, Wezil. It's about to get really interesting.

Still catching up on the thread (I've been on the road).

I'm waiting for it....

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Asher
See, I told you it wasn't Harper's personal opinion necessarily.

http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/508742

Good one.

I'm not overly concerned about this. While it's obviously not good to steal speeches (or parts thereof) I suspect there's lots of it going on. What they say is more important to me than where it came from.

The TO media is all over this but I doubt it has legs in the parts of the province the Cons are hoping to pick up seats. We'll see.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil


What I had in mind was this:

The 1985 election resulted in a minority parliament, in which the Tories held four more seats than David Peterson's Liberals, but were eleven seats short of a majority. After a series of negotiations, begun by a phone call from Rae to Peterson shortly after election day, Rae and Peterson signed a "Liberal-NDP Accord" in which the NDP agreed to support a Liberal government in office for two years. The Liberals, in turn, agreed to implement some policies favoured by the NDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Rae#1985_election_and_the_Liberal-NDP_Accord

Agreeing to support a minority government for a specified length of time (contingent upon policy implementation) is more than your usual "minority government" where every vote holds the potential for defeat.

I agree- But it remains something less than a coalition-- When I think of coalitions I generally think of a government and cabinet that involves both parties

It seems pretty moot anyway. If the bloc maintains their support, it is highly unlikely that any combination of parties that does NOT include the conservatives could be anywhere close to majority territory

[Wezil]

The numbers certainly make it unlikely. It was more likely a week ago, ie. before Harper walked into the "culture" landmine in Quebec. Bloc numbers have been increasing since then. It must be frustrating to the Cons to be trying so hard to woo Quebec but getting so little love back. Talk about a hard sell.

Can our resident separatists shine some light on this? Conservative policy is sometimes being blatantly modified to fit Quebec politics (Afghanistan for example) yet they are seeing little payoff. What gives?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil




Still catching up on the thread (I've been on the road).

I'm waiting for it....

Well -- I've said what I have to say in response to what he posted. Most of it was too "over-the top" to warrant response.

But things like royalty rates in big projects are (believe it or not) important to me. I have heard the call for a "fair share" often enough in Newfoundland and never got a straight answer there either as to what PERCENTAGE was a "fair share".

[Asher]

Can our resident separatists shine some light on this? Conservative policy is sometimes being blatantly modified to fit Quebec politics (Afghanistan for example) yet they are seeing little payoff. What gives?

Harper is representing the West?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Flubber


Well -- I've said what I have to say in response to what he posted. Most of it was too "over-the top" to warrant response.

But things like royalty rates in big projects are (believe it or not) important to me. I have heard the call for a "fair share" often enough in Newfoundland and never got a straight answer there either as to what PERCENTAGE was a "fair share".

I actually thought it was a good discussion on the issue. Unfortunately I'm not from AB and am not big on participating in economics discussions. My opinions on this are formed by debates such as yours.

Asher - That may be the response but then what about the Cons policy position? I'm hearing complaints from some it is "too Quebec" oriented, with the exception of the culture issue I mentioned earlier. Do they not see this and/or why aren't they buying?

[Asher]

I've never heard anyone complain about it being too "Quebec-oriented" nor am I surprised that the people in Quebec are not overwhelmingly going to vote for a guy from Alberta who wanted to erect a firewall around Alberta.

I don't know why this is perplexing or otherwise shocking.

[Asher]

Speech writer resigned:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080930.welexnplagiarism0930/BNStory/politics/home

Tories admit plagiarism in Harper speech
Speech writer resigns from campaign after Liberals reveal much of a 2003 speech on Iraq by Harper was cribbed from then Australian prime minister John Howard




CARLY WEEKS and BRODIE FENLON AND JANE TABER

Globe and Mail Update

September 30, 2008 at 3:59 PM EDT

OTTAWA — A Conservative campaign official has resigned after the Liberals revealed Tuesday that nearly half of Stephen Harper's 2003 speech urging Canada to send troops into Iraq was copied word-for-word from then Australian prime minister John Howard.

In a statement, Owen Lippert says he was working in Mr. Harper's office in 2003 when he was asked to write a speech for the-then leader of the opposition.

"Pressed for time, I was overzealous in copying segments of another world leader's speech ... I apologize to all involved and have resigned my position from the Conservative campaign."

Mr. Lippert said neither his superiors or Mr. Harper was aware of what he had done.

Liberal MP Bob Rae said the copied speech is damning evidence of the fact Canada is losing its own voice in foreign policy under a Conservative government. The country has become a parrot of right-wing interests from the U.S. and other foreign countries under Harper's Conservatives, Mr. Rae said.

"How can Canadians trust anything that Mr. Harper says now?" Mr. Rae said during a speech in Toronto. "Stephen Harper's government has taken Canada down a foreign and defence policy path unworthy of our great country."

Mr. Harper made his address to the House of Commons two days after Mr. Howard, and a side-by-side comparison of the speeches show significant portions were identical, Mr. Rae said.

"How does a leader in Canada's Parliament, on such a crucial issue, end up giving almost the exact same speech as any other country's leader, let alone a leader who was a key member of George W. Bush's coalition of the willing?" Mr. Rae said.

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said Mr. Harper should be expelled from the party and said his actions raise serious doubts about his ability to lead Canada's foreign policy without having to follow the direction of countries with right wing policies.

The Liberal campaign released videos of Mr. Howard and Mr. Harper's speeches, which were delivered March 18, 2003 and March 20, 2003, respectively.

"We should all remember the intense international pressure that Canada was under to send our troops to Iraq," Mr. Rae said.

Many of the lines of Mr. Howard's speech were also used in editorials Mr. Harper submitted to newspapers such as the Toronto Star, National Post and Ottawa Citizen.

Earlier, Conservative spokesman Yaroslav Baran told The Globe and Mail that Mr. Rae's "attack" was evidence of Liberal desperation.

"This is exactly why the Liberals are in the trouble they're in, as a party and as a campaign," Mr. Baran said Tuesday. "They want to focus on a speech from five years, two elections, three Parliaments ago, from a party that no longer exists.

Mr. Baran said the major issue on the minds of Canadians is the economy, and the Liberals should be focusing on that.

The fact the Liberals are making this accusation is evidence of their weak campaign and leadership, Mr. Baran said.

"We're not going to get drawn into which staffer wrote which speech five years ago," he said. "This is nothing but desperation from the Liberal campaign, and it's completely irrelevant to the real concerns of voters in this election."

A senior Conservative strategist repeatedly refused this morning to address the allegations of plagiarism by the Liberals. The strategist was on an off-the-record conference call with about 40 journalists.

Although the call was scheduled to discuss Mr. Harper's role in the upcoming leaders' debates and the request by the Tories to extend the economy portion of the debate because of the recent crisis, the strategist was inundated with questions from journalists about the Iraq speech.

The strategist dismissed the allegations as not being relevant and characterized the Liberal allegations as “gotcha” journalism and why Liberals are now at “an all-time low in the polls.”

At times, he was testy with reporters, dismissing a question as to whether the Bush White House asked Mr. Harper to make the remarks as “one of the most ridiculous speculative assertions I have heard.”

However, the strategist would not say whether the speech was plagiarized or who wrote it.

"He's unable to choose his own words," Mr. Dion said at a campaign event at a soup kitchen in Gatineau, Que. "Canadians want their country [to] speak with its own voice on the world stage."

While plagiarism is a major offence, the fact that Mr. Harper lifted words from another leader on such a critical issue as the war in Iraq is even worse, Mr. Dion said.

"He chose the words of the coalition of the willing," Mr. Dion said. "We have two problems. [He] plagiarized, but at the same time, plagiarized George W. Bush about the war in Iraq."

Not to be outdone, the New Democrats reminded voters Tuesday of several Liberals who advocated Canadian participation in the Iraq war, most notably deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff.

[Flubber]

So its exactly as I thought it was-- Harper asks for a speech supporting Iraq troops and his speechwriter gives him one and probably earned a pat on the back for providing a good one.

I doubt that Harper would even have known that the Australian PM had given the speech nor do I expect him to have known.

I still consider this a tempest in a teapot-- Criticize Harper for stating he favored Iraqi involvement-- but this speech is a bullcrap sideshow

[Asher]

It's just a way for the Liberals to casually remind people that he gave a speech to support the Iraq war. "If he was in power in 2003, we'd be in Iraq!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!FGOMDSGHJF"