CanPol: May(?) 2011 Election. Vote today!

[Asher]

No, but under Bush (), many social services were transfered to community based (read : faith based) groups. How do you think they would council a gay teen?

You're kidding yourself. Gay groups have been community based for many decades already. Hell, it was a ****ing crime to have gay sex until relatively recently. Most gay charities and helplines exist entirely outside of the government (eg, the ItGetsBetter project, the Trevor project, etc).

[notyoueither]

Oh well, enough of this. We'll see whose right. Catch you in 4 years.

Do you get the feeling it's going to be a long four years?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/04/ndp-mp-thomas-mulcair-questions-bin-laden-kill/

NDP MP Thomas Mulcair questions Bin Laden pictures

Daniel Kaszor May 4, 2011 – 8:54 PM ET | Last Updated: May 4, 2011 9:00 PM ET

By Sarah Boesveld and Sarah-Taissir Bencharif

The NDP got its first taste of the perils of prominence Wednesday after being forced to handle two public relations disasters as the newly elected Official Opposition.

While MP-elect Ruth Ellen Brosseau was scrutinized for allegedly filing falsified nomination papers in Quebec, deputy leader of the NDP, Thomas Mulcair, drew gasps when he said he does not believe the United States government has photographs of terrorist Osama bin Laden. He also hinted there may be “more going on,” behind the scenes of his assassination than the U.S. is making known.

“I don’t think, from what I’ve heard, that those pictures exist. And if they do, I’ll leave that up to the American military,” Mr. Mulcair said during an appearance on the CBC TV’s Power and Politics Wednesday.

Asked again whether he thinks the photos exist, Mr. Mulcair said: “No, I don’t think they do. If they’ve got pictures of a cadaver, there’s probably more going on than we suspect in what happened there.”

...

[OneFootInTheGrave]

graudian opinion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/03/canada-stephen-harper-american-politics

To put this in British terms, the Liberals (New Labour) were humiliated, the New Democrats (the Liberal Democrats) came in a powerful second and a Canadian version of George W Bush, minus the warmth and intellect, is now prime minister.

George Bush minus the intellect!

What is Harper supposed to be, an oak???

[C0ckney]

i would say that the NDP are more like our old (pre-blair) labour and the liberals are like our old liberal (pre-ww2) party. aside from getting it completely wrong, another great guardian piece.

[Asher]

graudian opinion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/03/canada-stephen-harper-american-politics

To put this in British terms, the Liberals (New Labour) were humiliated, the New Democrats (the Liberal Democrats) came in a powerful second and a Canadian version of George W Bush, minus the warmth and intellect, is now prime minister.

George Bush minus the intellect!

What is Harper supposed to be, an oak???

Ahhhh. As I was reading it I was thinking "this sounds like an article from the Red Star". Then I saw the author, and it's a Toronto Star columnist.

Heather Mallick is a somewhat notorious left-wing loon. She even ****ed up basic facts like where Harper was born -- the original article said Calgary, has been edited to mention he was, in fact, born in her precious Toronto.

Harper is genuinely regarded, even by people who hate him, to be quite cunning and intelligent. His aloofness is not a sign of stupidity, but a common thing with rather intelligent people. He's certainly widely regarded as far more intelligent than Bush.

Frankly, I think he's more intelligent than Ignatieff as well. Ignatieff has a reputation as an "intellect" only because that's how he positions and markets himself. In reality, he's not studied anything challenging and he never says anything profound. He writes some ****ty books and appears on BBC as an "intellect", and therefore he is one.

[Asher]

And Layton is simply people-smart. Look at his comments on interest rates if you want to see just how stupid he is.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

left-wing lunatics... for entertainment factor

[Asher]

I like her assertion that 40% of Canadian voters are "old men". At least, that's the implication.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/heres-why-stephen-harper-really-won/article2010333/

Here's why Stephen Harper really won
By MARGARET WENTE
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
A sad day for democracy? Nope, a great day for Canada

Thanks to the central Canadian punditocracy, I now know why the Conservatives won an overwhelming election victory, and why the Liberals were pulverized. It was those nasty attack ads on TV.

So powerful were they that they persuaded millions of gullible voters to rise up against Michael Ignatieff and vote for someone else. Mr. Ignatieff himself blames them for his demise. Fellow Liberals think their leader was just too darn high-minded to strike back. "This is a blood sport," griped Jim Karygiannis, one of the last Liberal MPs standing. "There is no Mr. Nice in this business."

Liberal-minded opinion-mongers have been twisting themselves into pretzels to explain Stephen Harper's completely unexpected whopping victory. They're obsessed with the attack ads. Besides, they say, the Conservatives just got lucky. They reaped a windfall from the collapse of the Bloc Québécois and unexpected vote splits. Another reason is that Mr. Harper successfully appealed to "voter fatigue," "fear" and an uninformed electorate that's sadly oblivious to the destruction of democracy in Ottawa.

Anyway, they argue, it really wasn't such a victory after all. Mr. Harper, they say, failed to broaden his base (even though he conquered Fortress Toronto, where he'd always been shut out), and won only 40 per cent of the popular vote (just like Jean Chrétien and Bill Davis). One commentator compared his win to George W. Bush's "stolen" election of 2000.

If you want to understand why Mr. Harper loathes the mainstream media, look no further. But if you want to understand why he won, you'll have to look elsewhere. One problem is that the media demonize the very qualities that have made him a success. They hate him for his micro-managing, control-freak ways. But those same qualities have been crucial to his success. Without them, he'd never have survived five years in the bear pit of minority government.

In fact, the Conservatives won because they did the sorts of things the Liberals used to do. They built broad coalitions among disparate groups. Take the so-called ethnic vote. When the Liberals courted new Canadians, it was smart. When the Conservatives do it, it's sleazy. During the campaign, the CBC assembled countless panels of ethnic people to express their disgust at this condescending and divisive tactic. Amazingly, however, ethnic voters seemed glad to have important cabinet ministers show up in their ridings. They liked the focus on stability and a strong economy. Besides, the Liberals hadn't been around for years.

The Conservatives' years of efforts paid off spectacularly. To get results like that, you need a long-term strategy, passion, and someone willing to drink 15,000 cups of tea. The Liberals no longer have any of those things.

The Conservatives profited from vote splits. But they were also able to get out the vote where it mattered. They were focused and had ground troops who worked hard. For this, they're being accused of running a soulless and technocratic campaign. (When Liberals ran things this way, they were called "professional.")

As for those attack ads, it was Jack Layton, not Stephen Harper, who dealt the crucial blow when he brought up Mr. Ignatieff's miserable attendance record in Parliament during the leaders debates. "If you are going to apply for a promotion, you at least ought to show up for the job," he cracked. It stuck. Iggy never recovered.

Plenty of Harper critics think that Monday was a sad day for democracy. Personally, I think it was a great day for Canada. The Bloc, which squatted in Ottawa like a toad for 20 years, is gone. Mr. Harper has forged a historic new alliance between the West and Ontario, and he didn't need Quebec to win. Quebeckers' mass infatuation with the NDP may not last longer than snow in April, but their ability to hold federal governments to ransom may be gone for good.

For the next four years, Canadians will enjoy a blissful reprieve from non-stop political theatrics and dysfunctional minorities. They will have a clear choice of competing political philosophies. Critics warn that our politics will become polarized between left and right. But if Mr. Harper aims to turn the Conservatives into the Natural Governing Party, he'll have to govern as a moderate. That's bad news for armies of political experts, CBC panelists, Margaret Atwood and the Toronto Star. I almost feel sorry for them.

[giblets]

Frankly, I think he's more intelligent than Ignatieff as well. Ignatieff has a reputation as an "intellect" only because that's how he positions and markets himself. In reality, he's not studied anything challenging and he never says anything profound. He writes some ****ty books and appears on BBC as an "intellect", and therefore he is one.

Never studied anything challenging? Wikipedia says he holds a PhD from Harvard.

[giblets]

And Layton is simply people-smart. Look at his comments on interest rates if you want to see just how stupid he is.

What did he say about interest rates?

[notyoueither]

graudian opinion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...rican-politics

That does not reflect very well on the Guardian.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

well it is under opinion "comment is free" section... so at least the label is right...

[Asher]

Never studied anything challenging? Wikipedia says he holds a PhD from Harvard.

He studied history. A PhD in history just means you spent a lot of time wasting money.

[giblets]

He studied history. A PhD in history just means you spent a lot of time wasting money.

Is this irony? Harvard doesn't just give PhD's away.

[Asher]

What did he say about interest rates?

https://research.tdwaterhouse.ca/research/public/Markets/NewsArticle/1314-N28273513-1

Challenging the role of the fiercely independent Bank of Canada -- and stepping into territory where politicians rarely venture -- Layton said the Bank of Canada should hold off on raising interest rates because doing so may slow job creation and too many Canadians are already unemployed.

Debt levels are already high, and higher interest rates could weigh families down further, he said.

He noted that a strong Canadian dollar is putting pressure on Canadian exporters, but he would not say whether he thinks the currency is too high.

"We just have to be very careful and use the fact that the dollar is so high as a signal that we probably need some strategic industrial policies around our value-added industries," he said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/stephen-gordon/layton-should-stay-clear-of-monetary-policy/article2003825/

Layton should stay clear of monetary policy
STEPHEN GORDON

In my recent post on the prospects of a possible NDP government, I came to the conclusion that not very much would change; their platform had none of the transformational elements that had been a feature of so many NDP campaigns in the past.

But if recent reports are correct, and if Jack Layton seriously thinks that it would be a good idea for a Prime Minister to instruct the Bank of Canada to keep interest rates low, then this benign assessment no longer holds. Such an intervention would be a serious mistake that would seriously endanger the recovery, and could generate another spiral of higher inflation and higher interest rates.

The first thing that would happen after such an order is that Governor Mark Carney would have no choice but to resign. This would be a serious shock to the financial system, and unless his successor could extract a promise that no further orders would be forthcoming, the Bank of Canada’s credibility would simply disappear.

The Bank’s mandate from the federal government is to keep inflation at around 2 per cent a year. Extremely low interest rates are appropriate during recessions, but when the economy returns to capacity -- as the Bank expects it will with the next 18 months -- then they become inflationary. By ordering the Bank to set aside its judgment and to let inflation increase beyond its target, the government would be in effect abandoning a policy that had provided the low and stable rates of inflation -- as well as the low and stable interest rates -- that we have seen over the past twenty years.

It took fifteen years and two recessions -- both of which were more severe than the one we just had -- to get inflation under control last time. That’s not an experience we want to repeat.

As I was writing this, another story appeared, suggesting that Mr Layton was merely expressing an opinion about the appropriate path of interest rates, and not considering the possibility of ordering the Bank of Canada to keep interest rates low. Later, an e-mail from NDP headquarters assured that "New Democrats are committed to the independence of the Bank." I greet these clarifications with no small amount of relief.

Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned here is that Prime Ministers -- and those who would be credible candidates for becoming Prime Minister -- should be extremely circumspect when discussing monetary policy. Twenty years of hard-won credibility is not something to be tossed aside so lightly.

To be fair, a couple days later after a lot of backlash he backed off from the comments and said the BoC should be an "arms-length institution" still. But his initial comments show he doesn't fundamentally understand how the BoC works. Which would be very troubling for the PM.