Majeres' Musings

write later.

cheers :) majere

Latest Poll from Decima shows status quo.

If no improvements between now and Sept, Harper will be looking for another job.

cheers :) majere

snipped>

A national survey completed Monday pegged Liberal support holding steady at 37 per cent, compared with 25 per cent for the Conservatives and 20 per cent for the NDP. The Decima Research poll provided to The Canadian Press suggests the Liberals have recovered in public opinion following damaging public testimony at Justice John Gomery's inquiry into the federal sponsorship program.

It's just one more indicator that Canadians won't likely be forced back to the ballot box before next fall, at the earliest - notwithstanding heated jockeying again this week in the House of Commons.

"Nobody wants an election," Conservative MP Vic Toews said Thursday, before providing a long list of reasons why one might be necessary.

Liberals are calling the latest Tory electoral sabre-rattling "petty bravado."

Decima's numbers suggest no party would particularly benefit from an election at present.

Just over 1,000 Canadians were surveyed over four days last weekend, providing a survey considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Liberal support plunged - and the Conservatives surged - in April after sensational testimony by advertising executive Jean Brault alleged an elaborate kickback scheme to the governing party.

But those Conservative gains were rapidly eroded last month after a Tory attempt to force an election fell short by a single vote in the Commons.

Allegations of attempted Liberal vote-buying by Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal - backed by surreptitious tape recordings that paint neither party in a flattering light - did nothing to help the Conservative cause.

"The Conservative party numbers have recovered a little from the days immediately following the budget vote and the Grewal tapes matter," said Decima CEO Bruce Anderson.

"However, the overall picture remains one of Liberal support strengthening to levels that existed just before the Brault testimony at the Gomery commission."

Regional breakdowns also favoured the Liberals.

Decima put Liberal support at 44 per cent in Ontario, with Conservatives at 28 and New Democrats at 22.

In Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois maintained its stranglehold with 52 per cent support, but the Liberals have recovered somewhat to 25 per cent - largely at the expense of the Tories, Anderson suggested.

The poll put the Conservatives and NDP in a statistical dead heat in Quebec, 10 per cent to nine per cent.

unsnipped<

Added;  oh well, the SSM Bill will get voted on next week, no adjournment of the House after the Budget Bill.  The Cons all pissied.




The Duff Man just said there is a deal between the Libs/NDP/Bloc to pass C48 tonight which can/will(?) adjourn the House (conflicting info, they extended the House, then limited debate on C48) therefore delaying Same Sex Marriage Bill till next week/indefinately(?).

The Conservatives might win in putting off SSM Bill.  (we will wait and see, eh)

I see Grewal in the House, I am not refering to her, but him.

The Duff Man was also stating that their are insiders calling for Harper to take a good look at the Polling numbers come September.  If they are still down, step down and call a Leadership Convention.

I wouldn't stand a chance, I believe in MORE personal Rights for all  :)

cheers :)  majere

Every time I see Anne sitting in a chair being interviewed I can't help but think of her as Harry Potters' OLDER EVIL SISTER,  the antithesis of Harry Potter.

The spewing of verbal diarhea versus the timid Harry, the constant measured lies versus the simple truth from Harry Potter.

And those glasses clinch it.

cheers :)  majere

7 days a week for the rest of your life.

just had to get that in there,

doc appointments and dentals coming up.

I am still trying to wrap my head around the "property ownership Rights" in the Conservative Policies.  It was not exactly what I wrote the Reform Party about while they were being created and looking for submissions. 

cheers  :)  majere.

National

Lib        -  34
Con      -  29
NDP     -  16
Green   -   6

Ontario

Lib       -  44
Con     -  31
NDP    -  16

So far looking at a strong Liberal Minority.

There is something that has been stuck in the forefront of my mind for the past week.  Last week, Monday or Tuesday on my Dumb Don Politics, Jeff Norquay stated when asked that the Conservative Party will not release their election platform until the Writ is dropped. 

The problem is that they have their item by item, word for word approval of their Platform Policies listed under a Link on their wedsite.  Now I am thinking that their is some kind of election contraindication here.

The Policy convention held in Montreal was to bring Ontario East into the Conservative fold with a moderate Policy stance.

Now is Jeff Norquay now hinting that the Policy Convention Policies are a total bust?  That the Party Members who approved these Policies are now going to over-ruled by the Leader and their Comms Department?

I am also picking up on the odd Conservative Blog out there that they are promoting the idea of getting out the Conservative Policies en-force because its the Policies stupid.  I was getting the impression from these sites that if they got the Policy Word out that it would help change Ontario East voters minds towards the Conservatives, that Ontario East just has not been exposed to the Conservatives Policies, and once so, would see that they are a viable alternative.

Ok, so now I have Jeff Norquay of the Conservative Comms Dept stating no election platform but the bloggers are saying get the policies out there. 

Why did not Jeff Norquay mention the Policy Platform as to that is what the Conservatives stand for?

I am going to muse that the Conservatives, seeing that their latest Policy Convention was not accepted by Ontario East will be ignored.  That the Conservatives will come out with a "more" moderate stance.  Now I bet some people will be saying that the election platform is derived from the Policies.  Ok, but how do you expand on a word by word approval when those words are not accepted anyway? 

Unless you read those words in, and read them down.  To read them up would change the original policy.

So I expect a simple election platform, that is very general, that can be read into, to mean whatever the electoral location dictates.  The actual mention of their Policy Platform will be ignored as in not mentioned during the campaign.

cheers :)  majere

Lie-ing to friendlies to get what you want.
Lie-ing to avoid public backlash.
Lie-ing to cover up.
Lie-ing to keep peoples in ignorance.

Sounds like Bush and Co. has something in common with the Political Parties of Canada, eh?

cheers :)  majere

snipped>

17 June 2005

American officials lied to British ministers over the use of "internationally reviled" napalm-type firebombs in Iraq.

Yesterday's disclosure led to calls by MPs for a full statement to the Commons and opened ministers to allegations that they held back the facts until after the general election.

Despite persistent rumours of injuries among Iraqis consistent with the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm, Adam Ingram, the Defence minister, assured Labour MPs in January that US forces had not used a new generation of incendiary weapons, codenamed MK77, in Iraq.

But Mr Ingram admitted to the Labour MP Harry Cohen in a private letter obtained by The Independent that he had inadvertently misled Parliament because he had been misinformed by the US. "The US confirmed to my officials that they had not used MK77s in Iraq at any time and this was the basis of my response to you," he told Mr Cohen. "I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position."

Mr Ingram said 30 MK77 firebombs were used by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in the invasion of Iraq between 31 March and 2 April 2003. They were used against military targets "away from civilian targets", he said. This avoids breaching the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which permits their use only against military targets.

Britain, which has no stockpiles of the weapons, ratified the convention, but the US did not.

The confirmation that US officials misled British ministers led to new questions last night about the value of the latest assurances by the US. Mr Cohen said there were rumours that the firebombs were used in the US assault on the insurgent stronghold in Fallujah last year, claims denied by the US. He is tabling more questions seeking assurances that the weapons were not used against civilians.

Mr Ingram did not explain why the US officials had misled him, but the US and British governments were accused of a cover-up. The Iraq Analysis Group, which campaigned against the war, said the US authorities only admitted the use of the weapons after the evidence from reporters had become irrefutable.

Mike Lewis, a spokesman for the group, said: "The US has used internationally reviled weapons that the UK refuses to use, and has then apparently lied to UK officials, showing how little weight the UK carries in influencing American policy."

He added: "Evidence that Mr Ingram had given false information to Parliament was publicly available months ago. He has waited until after the election to admit to it - a clear sign of the Government's embarrassment that they are doing nothing to restrain their own coalition partner in Iraq."

The US State Department website admitted in the run-up to the election that US forces had used MK77s in Iraq. Protests were made by MPs, but it was only this week that Mr Ingram confirmed the reports were true.

Mike Moore, the Liberal Democrat defence spokes-man, said: "It is very serious that this type of weapon was used in Iraq, but this shows the US has not been completely open with the UK. We are supposed to have a special relationship.

"It has also taken two months for the minister to clear this up. This is welcome candour, but it will raise fresh questions about how open the Government wished to be... before the election."

The MK77 bombs, an evolution of the napalm used in Vietnam and Korea, carry kerosene-based jet fuel and polystyrene so that, like napalm, the gel sticks to structures and to its victims. The bombs lack stabilising fins, making them far from precise.unsnipped<

There is a little chatter I noticed about some people who chose not to listen to as much TV news anymore.  That it is biased against their Political Party anyway.

My thoughts are, ok, personal choice, up to each individual to decide, - but what happens when these people try to influence other people to do the same?  Yes they have the Right to do so.

I just have to ask myself;  is it a wise choice for me?  Does it fit my lifestyle?  Does it prevent me from doing something else that is more productive for me?

There are people who have their PC's in a seperate room from their TV(s).  There are people that use lap-top PCs everywhere.  Myself, I have my desktop PC in the living room with a 13 inch tv beside my PC monitor with the living room TV 12 feet from me.  Each TV is always on with a different news station on, except when my wife watches one of her shows on the living room tv.

Why point this out to myself?

From all the negative internet chatter about Main Stream Media being biased, I like to stay on top of the information and try to validate it as information or mis-information.  To learn the techniques of mis-information as being spun by the Political Parties then comparing it to Polling results and media interview clips of  "commoners" in the streets.  Basically stay informed and validate what I am hearing and reading.  Everyone has their own comfort level of acceptance.

In a nutshell,  keep your enemies close by keeping their techniques close so one does not fall into their traps over and over again.

I learned this lesson when I was twenty years old learning the basics of Intelligence at the Regimental and Brigade level (a side line).  To make a long boring story short, one learns to task ALL available resources all the time for intelligence gathering.  From the lowly foot patrols, to armoured reconisence, to fly overs, to outside agencies.

The lesson learned came from a "Command Post" exercise where all command posts are set up and fully operated from Brigade to the lowest Infantry Section.  The Brigadier with his staff and maps in one room while down the hall there is a Captain Intelligence Officer with his staff and maps acting as the big bad Russian enemy following the known Russian doctrine of battle at that time.

The Canadians of course setting up defensive positions complete with mine fields and anti-tank ditches all in realistic estimated times.  The Russians kilometers away rolling over light resistance designed to slow them down.  The Canadian Generals job is to first hold the line and back up when necessary to preserve troops to slow up the Russians until heavy re-inforcements arrive.   The Canadian General tasking his various resources to find exactly where the Russians are, what type of units, how fast are they moving, what direction, estimated strength etc and having Intelligence Operators plotting it on maps for the Canadian General.  As much information as possible to make his decisions as to the best defence possible with the least amount of casualties.  The Canadian General has made some decent Intelligence finds and of course is plotted, he is pretty sure what he is up against.

The Russians advancing under direction of the Intel Captain is meeting light local German resistance and notices that a pocket of Canadians, Brigade strength is ahead.  His job is to keep plowing ahead with all possible speed regardless of casualties, going for penetration to wreak havoc throughout the enemies supply lines.  He notices the Canadians have, and still are setting  many tank defences  as his Russian Units bump into the Canadians.  For his unit to survive the penetration some speed must be compromised.

The Canadian General pretty well knows what he is up against and is facing the Russian heavy armoured division in front of him.  His tank traps working as planned with no-one really panicking.  He thinks he just might be able to hold off this penetrating wave and live to fight the second concealment wave.  He is still tasking his now engaged units to send enemy information to him for enemy intelligence to confirm unit make-up and closed in intentions etc, don't want to get outflanked now that the battle has begun in earnest .  The Generals higher Command is saying that the Russians appear to be  starting out with conventional versus tactical nuclear warfare.  A good thing as the Canadians have built for defense of ground to stop versus nuclear dispersion which would weaken his defences, his only chance at stopping an enemy tank division.

The Russians realizing this after several several hours of battle break off and back up slightly.  A call is placed for tactical nukes or the Division is lost with the surviving Canadians being a thorn in their side.  Night is falling. 

The Canadian General sends out heavy reconaisance, whats going on?  He fails to ask for a fly-over, why when I know the enemies right in front of me.

The Russians pull back several kilometers.  The Canadian General fails and thinks of the Russians going around him between him and the British beside him.  Finding a weaker spot for penetration.  A possible Canadian counter-attack against the Russians if they chose to out-flank the Canadians.  Ha ha.

The Canadian position is now glowing in the dark as it is now nightfall.  The Russians with their troops in armour steam roll over the radio-active site with Russian acceptable radiation casualties.  Their Russian objective of winning the battle to penetrate and dusrupt rearward lines is successful.

The funny part is when the Intel Captain came down the hall to tell the General he was nuked. End Ex.  Well the General went ballistic and said you can't do that.  The Captian replied I just did and your dead and that you failed to pick up the nuke launchers that came along at such and such distance along this route and that you missed that and tie-ing it in with the 2 kilometer back-up regroup.  That if you would have requested a fly-over anywhere along these 3 routes when that occured you would have picked  up the moving of the launchers into position.

Task all available resources,eh?

Or is it better to ignore any potential bad news?

Or is it better to get even more information in light of bad news?

Or is it better to stay on top of bad news?

cheers :)  majere
from cfb petawawa 1982

rough draft, maybe add to it later

How many people out there are aware of the fallacy involved with the below Conservative Press Release?
How many have even heard or read the Conservative Press Release?
How many will use this Press Release for the fallacy involved as gospel?
How many will use this Press Release to point out the fallacy?

I am going to think out on a limb and muse that the Comunications Director who vetted this Release is using it two-fold.

One; that it re-affirms to the ignorant of cannabis that the Conservative Party still believes in you and your fallacies.  This maintains Party support of that sub-class of electorate.

Two;  that to those who are aware of the fallacy - who needs you, as we don't want you anyway.

Now to those that are cannabis  indifferent where one does not get involved in anothers herbal garden, it speaks of a "half truth", then a lie clearly associated to the Conservative Party.  So much for trying to instill trust in a Leader and Party - except to the ignorant.

My comments embedded in bold italics.

snipped>

The Bait (the title)

OTTAWA – In the House of Commons today, Official Opposition Health Critic Steven Fletcher, M.P. for Charleswood – St. James – Assiniboia, blasted the Liberals for their failed medicinal marijuana grow-op in Manitoba.

“The government-run marijuana grow-op in Flin Flon, Manitoba has been a bust.  The crop has little medicinal value true in that it is not strain specific and may be corrupted by mine contaminants,” said Fletcher, “Will the Minister shut down the operation or will taxpayers continue to be shafted?” if it was as legal as turnips just think of the money saved by policing services alone

In December 2000, Health Canada, then headed by Allan Rock, decided to produce 400 kilograms of marijuana each year for four years.  The marijuana was grown in an old mine in Flin Flon, about 650 kilometres northwest of Winnipeg. The crop was intended for research into the therapeutic value of medicinal marijuana, and Health Canada ultimately set up a system for distributing it to medical users. Street cannibis is of better quality, can get the strain required, and at the same price.

Now the Switch.

“Just like tobacco, marijuana has serious health effects.  Now the lie of comparing cannabis and tobacco, see court case below.   Ironically, the government fights tobacco smoking yet encourages marijuana smoking,” (encourages, -  another lie) said Fletcher. “There’s a new safe alternative for medical marijuana users, a cannabis spray called Sativex. With the introduction of Sativex, will the government reconsider its marijuana policy?”  Sativex is a whole cannabis spray which is hash but in vapourized form.  Many people vapourize (volcano vapourizer) and bake with cannabis (cannabis butter) versus smoking.

-30-

For further information, please contact the office of Steven Fletcher at (613) 943-8131

So Canada has the Senate Report, Court Case(s), Le Dain, 70 yrs of prohibition where no deaths have been caused by cannabis, no cancer or ailment specific to cannabis unless the use of the word/term "may" very lightly attached to it.  Irritations to the bronchial passageway is immediately reversed upon stopping of smoking (i will cite med study later when i dig it up, but its a moot point anyway to those who vapourize and bake).  No irritations from vapourizing and baking.

You have a contradiction in the above Press Release, they use a common fallacy of linking tobacco to cannabis then turn around and lie about the harms, then  ask the government to consider Sativex which is just hash set up in a vapourizor.

Now from a Court Case with a "Learned Judge" who heard from all sides all medical information and the agreed upon facts in law are outlined below.  I wonder why Le Dain (who heard experts from both sides), The Senate Report (which heard experts from both sides), the Dutch (who live with it as experts),  and this Judge (who heard experts on both sides) all came to the same conclusions?  Is it because its true perhaps?

¶ 32      It was found by McCart J. in R. v. Clay that in some foreign jurisdictions marijuana offences have been characterized as being "de-criminalized".  That is, although they remain against the law, penalties for these offences have been eased.  He adds, however, that this is not the case in any western country.  [See Note 8 below]  Judge Sheppard in R. v. Parker found that the only established negative effect of smoking marijuana was the same as that of smoking tobacco: bronchial pulmonary damage.  The greater the usage, the greater this risk becomes.  [See Note 9 below]   Other court findings include:

1.
Consumption of marijuana is relatively harmless compared to so called hard drugs and including tobacco and alcohol;
2.
There exists no hard evidence demonstrating any irreversible organic or mental damage from the consumption of marijuana;
3.
Cannabis does cause alteration of mental functions and as such, it would not be prudent to drive a car while intoxicated;
4.
There is no hard evidence that cannabis consumption induces psychoses;
5.
Cannabis is not an addictive substance;
6.
Marijuana is not criminogenic in that there is no evidence of a causal relationship between cannabis use and criminality;
7.
The consumption of marijuana probably does not lead to "hard drug" use for the vast majority of consumers, although there appears to be a statistical relationship between the use of marijuana and a variety of other psychoactive drugs;
8.
Marijuana does not make people more aggressive or violent;
9.
There have been no recorded deaths from the consumption of marijuana;
10.
There is no evidence that marijuana causes amotivational syndrome;
11.
Less than 1% of marijuana users are daily users;
12.
Consumption in so-called "de-criminalized" states does not increase out of proportion to states where there is no de-criminalization; and
13.
Health related costs of cannabis use are negligible when compared to the costs attributable to tobacco and alcohol consumption.  [See Note 10 below]

---

Note 8: Supra, note 3 at 360.

Note 9: (1997), 12 C.R. (5th) 251 at 262.

   Note 10:  Supra, note 3, R. v. Clay at 360-1 and note 9 at 261.
unsnipped<

With all the talk about Harpers Image, the Parties image, and yet they blow trust all to heck.

the libs as the status quo get the default vote, but, can still be swayed with the tax cut promised from the Conservatives depending on the dollar amount monthly it means - still waiting for a reply from the Conservative Party as to how much it would mean to me

cheers, and happy vapourizing and baking with god given herbal flowers. :) majere.

Scott oooops Reid told the Duff Man no deal on delaying the Same Sex Marriage Bill until the Fall sitting if the Conservatives support the NDP 4.6 odd million dollar budget.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the Liberals know they have the numbers all lined up anyway?

cheers  :) majere

Don and some pundit said that BBQ circuits are for rallying the troops only.  There might only be the odd photo op available, Harper and his wife, Harper eating a hot dog like a regular person - yuk, nitrates and screaming cholesteral, screaming LDL fats.

Just for rallying the troops, eh?

I hope the Communications team that the Party and Harper has assembled pulls a rabbit out of their media hat.

A side thought two part question, for a spouse that does not work, how much are the Conservatives going to raise the spousal deduction, and the personal deduction for tax purposes?  Base it on a couple, husband and wife of course.

I went to the Conservative site to get an email address and ended up using their "fields form" to ask.  I asked what would be the increases based from 2004 tax year.

I patiently wait.

cheers  :)  majere

Julie just stated that the Conservatives are going to get Harper out on the BBQ circuit this summer to showcase his humour and honesty (versus the Liberals dishonesty).  Also that they will be surrounding him with other members of his team (including more female members) to show more of a whole team approach, to also include generalities on Policies such as Agriculture ( I read that he will stay away from controversial Policies).

Showcasing the Leader, showcasing the team.  Talking about Policies in general.

Ok, how is this for a strategy?

A charismatic leader with a competent team that represents "not widely held policies" still only represents "not widely held voters".

I know I steered this to the Parties Policies again (which I will hopefully get into at a later date).

Now to give this stategy its due.  It just might start to turn around the Main Stream Media.  I am beginning to sense that the Media realize that they are showing a viewer realized bias for the Liberals and against the Conservatives.  This Conservative summer strategy could tip the media, therefore the electorate a little more in their favour.  I must remind myself that it would be the charisma followers that will be brought over first, then some policy followers based on trust, trust versus  their views on Policies in that it is only in the trust to nail the Liberals.

It could be enough to get the Polls starting to show some Conservative favour this fall.  Getting the ball rolling as it where.  I just hope that the insiders have the nuts and bolts worked out, soundbites ready and everyone innoculated against foot in mouth disease.

obvious in that it does not give the Liberals any new openings from now until the next election

cheers  :)  majere

and the ndp still do not count

Just to point out.

I asked people to read the entire comments section at Small Dead Animals and decide for themselves.  I was not deciding, or pretending to decide for them.

I pointed out the name calling the goes on when one is disagreed with.  Its a persons individual choice as to whether they want to deal with that or not.  I asked that people visit Small Dead Animals to read and determine for themselves.

I did not want to deal with it if I made an "unfriendly  viewed opinion" so I informed Kate of it that I would de-link if it did not turn around, I de-linked.

I would not recommend a site where one is called names for offering an opinion even though I resorted to it in frustration at the very end in trying to deal with Richard Evans.

Then again, I pointed out to visit Small Dead Animals, read and as an individual, decide for yourselves.

Kate to me appears to be taking it personally.  I am sorry, it is not personall

I have always recomended Small Dead Animals as a Western Conservative view worth reading, and now all I am saying is decide for yourselves.

Its not personal Kate, its personall choice.

cheers  :)  majere
roger m roeder kitchener ontario canada

Some people can keep secrets and some people think they are intelligent enough to manipulate the media for their own gain or at least for what THEY think is best for the Party ...........all on their own.  This almost makes sense to me in that 2 insiders are already leaving Harpers' inner circle.  With the Bourque release, perhaps someone is deciding to hurry up the situation of a leadership change?

Perhaps from an outside person, who wants in?

Note my emphasis within the snipped article.

snipped>

Feh,

tell that to all the Liberal Gomery culprits I've headlined over the past year, not to mention the myriad Gun Registry, HRDC boondoggle, anti-Martin, LaPierre stupidities, and what about what's his name the McGuinty CabMin who's been front and center at my site the past few days. Ain't he and the rest of them all Liberal ?`

News is in the eye of the beholder. Bad news follows bad events and disappointing people. Right now the Harper Tories are attracting the bad news stories because countless Tories are disappointed ... and rightly so ... and for what it's worth, the insider stories I'm breaking are coming from Harper insiders.

Look back in time and recall I was first with the Charest to Quebec stories, the Dump Clark items, the Stock Day ematiations, the fabulist Tom Long's inanities, the bombastic John Roth obfuscations, the Nortel job chops, the anti-Chretien Martin plottings ... and on and on ...

Funny, but in just about every case, whether political or corporate or otherwise, there are always people all too quick to denounce the messenger, only to later find out that the message was on target.

Harper is in a pickle, he's in deep doo-doo. I'd say his leadership is on the line, perhaps fatally wounded.

So, set aside the Kool Aid and smell the coffee. Yes, folks, it's that bad.

Go figure.

- p

unsnipped<

cheers :) majere

For a portion of the voters out there its the Policies.  What size is that portion?

For a portion of the voters out there its the Parties Charisma.  What size is that portion?

Steven Harper had no say in the Party Polices but yet he must represent each Policy.  It was the Party Members at the Montreal Policy Meeting that voted on each Policy and the exact wording to be descriptive.  -  For this then a Leadership change means nothing.  Now to be fair one must take into account those who think that the Leader and his immediate staff have the ability to "Delphi" the Party supporters to "his" way of  Policy interpretations.  This with the reverse Delphi of supporters onto the Leader.  In this sense a Leader accepts the Party Members larger influence while accepts that his own is minimized.

To have ones Party Members blame the Leader for not getting the Policies out assumes that the Parties Policies would be widely accepted to the the point of a majority win if an election were held.  Is it not a fallacy to believe, to believe one, and therefore ones policies to be correct if after X amount of time the general electorate does not?  There are many ways for the electorate to read and hear a Parties Policies.  The Leader is just one means.   The Party would be contradicting itself  to assume that the Party Policies our out in the Public domain and not being accepted, and therefore are not all emcompassing of the electorate, and then turn around and blame the Leader for not getting out the Policies any further, all the while not being accepted.  To say the Leader is the tipping point of acceptance of ones Policies would also mean that the Policies are not as widely accepted as the Party Members fully believe.  Contradictions in beliefs I muse is causing confusion and therefore frustration. 

Party Charisma, having the electorate feel that they should jump onto your bandwagon can be quite compelling.  I read an interesting quote from a contributor over at Small Dead Animals that we should try to make it, "cool to be conservative".   The Conservative Partys' only hope here is MacKay.  How many electorate would follow MacKay to the end of the Earth?  Let alone Harper?  Harper or the Members managed to get a young Caucus elected.  They tried to exploit this as a means of showing young, hip, cool, and in touch.  Did it work?  No.  Why?  I am sure I could find young people representing any segment of beliefs and policies I want.  But are they of my beliefs and policies?  Are they hip and cool beliefs and policies?  The Party showed a shallowness of image when they portrayed their youthfullness to the electorate, and the electorate saw the shallowness.  Now if this same young caucus had the youthfull, hip, and in touch policies to go with it, no problem.  Its the Party Policies again, not the Leader that has hamstrung them.

Once again I muse its the Policies, not the Leader.
Its the Policies not the media.

The Leader represents Policies which do not represent the majority of the Public.

One final comparison, look at the NDP Policies.  They represent a small minority of the electorate, and that is all they will ever get, even when they had a leader such as Broadbent and the present telegenic Layton.

Its always up to the challeger to "prove" their Policies to the electorate to unseat the ruling.  It is this proof of Policies where the electorate decide who to vote for.  I do not see the Conservatives dealing with any specific Policy in detail meaning that in general it can be interpreted any way they see fit and leaves a taste of unproven vagueness in the mouths of the electorate.

The libs get the vote by default through maintaining the status quo.

cheers :) majere.

Gilles knows which side his bread is buttered on.  Have to tough it out with the occasional interview, the occasional speech, the occasional guest speaker, just so he can add to his Federal Pension.  Why give a sure money maker up?

Why fight the Polls?
Why have two leadership conventions?
Why make it easier for the Liberals?
A leader with no fear of an election?  No fear.

I say he is a well spoken thorn in the Liberals side.  I have to like his decision.

cheers :)  majere

Article snipped below stating how the Liberals are going to go on the offensive in Quebec this Fall.

Here is a novel thought for all Parties.  Why ply Quebec with money to stay in Canada?  Why not make it too expensive for them to leave?  It is not to show how much one cares with equating caring to dollars, or caring to programs, or caring to understanding they are different so they require special care.

Its actually quite easy for someone like me.  Now for someone like Martin where his home is, he would not like the results.

An overview as follows, again its only an overview.  I will not proof-read what I write below.

Quebec is a financial have not province - more money goes into the province than is removed by federal taxes.  Quebec having to make up the difference, as an example the 1200 RCMP officers and staff, minus the infrastructure that remains of course.  Now remove all Federal personel and Programs.

Not to get ahead of myself, the stage and warnings have to be set.  With plenty of advance warning to all citizens of Quebec, straight out no soveriegnty association, complete seperation where you will be your own country, your own border crossings, your own negotiation of trade, your own overseas ambassies, all Canadian personel posted out of Quebec, is the picture so far.

The picture I am painting costs dollars, lots of them where the elimination of duplicating services does not come close to making up the difference.

A financial kicker is required.  The Canadian Bank must re-print all outstanding Bonds (the overseas ones, not the fake Canada Savings Bonds) with an amended dollar amount approxiamately 23 percent less (population of Quebec) with a note to buyer on the bottom stating that to recieve the difference, one must see the Government of the Country of Quebec for payment, then of course re-issue all Bonds.  This must be publicised well in advance to have the dollar drop of course before it finally stabalizes prior to a Referandum.  This of course sets the confidence level and credit level of Quebec where Quebec if deciding not to honour will in effect destroy any chance of borrowing money for funding their new countries requirements.  In effect they become an instant banana republic who cannot borrow money unless the interest is soooo outragous.  All Federal infrastructure remains in Quebec and is not moved, just the people if they chose.

With the kicker above, several aces in my hand would also have to be stated well in advance.  One is that since Quebec exports quite a bit of dairy products to the rest of Canada, an immediate import tax  to double the cost of the products will be applied.  This will destroy their dairy industry as the brokers will not be able to sell the products to distributors outside of Quebec.  In fact a "double the price" import tax will be applied on all imports until trade negotiations are complete.  Of course, this could take years, actually will take years, and will of course only start after the referandum, not prior.

The next ace I would play would be that no resident of Quebec would be able to enter Canada without a valid Quebec passport.  This forces the Quebec government to print all passports after creating the infrastructure and equipment to do so.  No business people moving freely across the new borders until so.  It will not be business as usual the day after seperation.  This coupled with advance warning will force Quebec businesses to stay and challenge seperation or move their business out just in case.  Quebec resident students studying in Canada will be immediately deported.

Another Ace to be played has a two fold purpose.  One, is to not allow any form of Canadian pensions to be paid to the foriegn country.  Two, not to allow any resident of Quebec to work in Canada.  This of course might be negotiated over a number of years.

The last Ace to be played would be the positioning of Police and Military around Quebec roadways leaving Quebec as an instant Border Guard to enforce the above prior to the referandum.

Ok, as an overview only, I think I painted a gruesome picture of only a few of the many ways to make Quebec residents think twice about thinking they can actually become a soveriegn nation without paying one hell of a price.

Would it be called "tough love" or cruelty?  I side with it being just a matter of fact.

cheers :) majere

snipped>
Transport Minister Jean Lapierre shed light on his party's plans to launch a major summer offensive in Quebec.

Lapierre, who's also the Liberal party's Quebec lieutenant, said after a winter of discontent in the province over allegations of Liberal corruption that surfaced almost daily from the Gomery inquiry, it's time to move on.

"My objective would be to win a majority of seats in Quebec for the Liberal party, and I think it's possible," said Lapierre on CTV's Question Period on Sunday.

He said the Liberals have a "plan of action" that they'll kick off on August 10 and let roll until the end of the year.

Though stingy on details, Lapierre said the strategy would involve Prime Minister Paul Martin and a number of cabinet ministers in Quebec, taking their message "directly to Quebecers."

"We're not going to be on the defensive; we're going to be on the offensive, which we couldn't be, frankly, during the Gomery inquiry because everyday we were stunned by the news that we were getting from there. And we had to react to things that we had never imagined."

Whether their plan will be enough to win over Quebec voters remains to be seen, as polls shows the Liberals have been devastated from the sponsorship fallout in the province. A recent poll shows the Liberals have the backing of just 26 per cent of Quebecers -- compared to 51 per cent for the Bloc Quebecois.

Lapierre, however, didn't seem perturbed by the numbers.

"Twenty-six, it's pretty good," he said.

"I'm pretty happy because, for a while, we were under 20. And now, being at 26 -- and last election we got 34 per cent for 21 seats -- we just have to get 10, 15 more points and we'll be in business. And I think we're going to do be able to do that."

Lapierre also took shots at the separatists, as his party drools over the possibility of making gains in Quebec in light of the recent uncertainty clouding the Parti Quebecois.

When Bernard Landry stepped down as PQ leader last weekend, questions over leadership spilled over to the Bloc as well -- whose members are eagerly awaiting Gilles Duceppe's decision on whether he'll leave federal politics to try to lead the PQ in Quebec.

Recent polls suggest Duceppe would be the frontrunner if he decided to run for the PQ, but speculation is that he'll announce Monday that he won't make the jump to Quebec from Ottawa.

"What he's probably realizing is that the PQ is not going to unroll the red carpet for him because there's a lot of traffic there already," said Lapierre.

"So maybe he's decided that he'd rather be comfortable, spend the rest of his life in Ottawa instead of fighting the real war."

Bloc House Leader Richard Marceau, however, said what the separatists do in Ottawa is as important as what they accomplish in Quebec.

"The Bloc has actually been doing such a good job (in Ottawa) that sovereignty is now at 54 per cent in the polls. And a big part of it is because of the work we've been doing here," said Marceau during a panel discussion with other party house leaders on Sunday's Question Period.

Although Marceau would not confirm that Duceppe will announce he's staying in Ottawa, he said "all indications seem to go that way."

The Parti Quebecois will decide this fall on who will lead the separatist party in the next provincial election.

Senior PQ officials announced this weekend that their party will have a new leader by Nov. 15th, but it's unclear exactly how or when a vote will take place.
unsnipped<

An Article snipped below.

Two schools of thought here of course.

First, play the high road,
Second, play the low road,

I have read some Conservative sites where they are just itching to take the gloves off and do the American on the Liberals.  With Harper and Conservatives sinking, could it help, or could it hurt?

I say hit the Liberals with everything as dirty as possible.  When the Libs come back and say look how low they have sunk, state, thats the only way we can actually get Main Stream Media to report us so we can get our message out.  A pathetic way to get the media to listen, but it might be the only way.  Its up to Harper and his media people to figure out the nuts and bolts.  But then again, what have they done over the last little while?  Maybe thats why there is a rumour of several leaving Harpers inner world.   Not to good according to Polls.  If your someone who cannot accept polls, forget you, its part of politics, and "Delphi-ing" the electorate is part of its unspoken underhandness.

Then again, explaining to the public that this is the only way we can get the media to report our message will just turn the medium into the story along with how the Conservatives are sinking to americanism.

Can the Conservatives figure out how to get through the media?

snipped>
Sun, June 12, 2005

Martin takes aim at Harper

Prime Minister Paul Martin has got a message for Ontarians: Conservative Leader Stephen Harper will put national unity at risk and won't work in the interests of the province if he forms the next government.

Martin took aim at Harper in a two-page householder pamphlet delivered to targeted Ontario ridings this week, including Ottawa Centre where NDP MP Ed Broadbent is king, but has announced he won't be seeking re-election.

In A Message from Prime Minister Paul Martin, the mail points to the fact Harper has said that an election could be held before Justice John Gomery issues his sponsorship report later this year.

As well, Martin reminds voters that the Tories have sided with the separatist Bloc Quebecois.

'NATIONAL UNITY AT RISK'

"He is the one putting national unity at risk, once again proving that, in his mind, political opportunism trumps the best interests of Ontarians," the PM writes.

Tory Deputy Leader Peter MacKay called the pamphlet more Liberal "fearmongering."

"This may be an indication that they are trying to cause an election themselves," MacKay said. "This is another way of distracting constituents away from their desperate vote-buying tactics and the sponsorship scandal ... these are the facts that they don't want Canadians to see."

In late May the Tories did their own mailout, targeting specific ridings, with their take on Adscam.

The PM's director of communications, Scott Reid, confirmed particular ridings were being targeted by the Grits, but refused to say which ones.

"All parties send out mailings to Canadians to communicate their views on important issues. It's called competing for support. You should see the things they say about us," Reid said.

maria.mcclintock@tor.sunpub.com
unsnipped<

cheers :) majere

The media just might be starting to wake up and catch up to bloggers who have been reporting this fiasco for weeks.   The everything for all and nothing in particular is finally getting some punches thrown at it.  It also shows how far Jack Layton is willing to go to base his speaking point lies.

snipped>

FROM THE SUN OTTAWA

Today's tour of taxpayer hell takes us to Paul Martin's great government garage sale and giveaway, where the prime minister has something for everyone and no one leaves without a piece of the public treasury.

At the bargain-budget table, we find a most unusual spending goodie worth a whopping $4.5 billion that may not exist for federal programs yet to be invented.

The ka-ching collection in question is known formally as Bill C-48, informally as the NDP budget amendment, and affectionately as Layton's Larceny.

Crafted in hotel room

Crafted by Martin and NDP leader Jack Layton in a Toronto hotel room in late April, the spending package was the price extorted by the New Democrats for propping up the minority Liberal government.

Since its introduction in Parliament, the bill has attracted a barrage of criticism from business and taxpayer groups. The Conservatives are again threatening to defeat the Liberals over it.

For once, so much howling indignation is more than political posturing. In this case, it is all perfectly justified.

This is the bill that political hucksters built, at worst an act of fiscal recklessness that should make even Liberals blush.

At best, it is a complete hoax that suckered the NDP, and not a dime of the promised spending will ever leave the public purse.

It's all in the fine print.

First, the government is putting the cash before the cause -- the supposedly critical programs all this loot is allegedly going to have either not been identified or simply don't exist.

That explains why the bill is deliberately vague in allocating the $4.5 billion.

For instance, the NDP have been boasting the deal will provide students with "immediate relief from soaring tuition costs."

Yet the actual bill before the Commons provides "an amount not exceeding $1.5 billion ... for supporting training programs and enhancing access to post-secondary education, to benefit, among others, aboriginal Canadians."

Lower college tuition? Don't bet your books on that one.

Similarly, the Dippers have been decrying Conservative attempts to hold up the bill, saying the nation's homeless simply cannot wait another minute for help.

But again, the bill is so vague as to be virtually meaningless, providing a $1.6 billion for "affordable housing, including housing for aboriginal Canadians."

Not the faintest idea

We called five ministries most likely to be on the receiving end of the $4.5 billion, and no one seemed to have the faintest idea how all that loot is going to be spent.

Conservative members of the Commons finance committee wanted to summon ministers to explain what their prospective departments will be providing for this mountain of tax money. Not a single minister appeared.

Part of the reason no one seems to know how all this cash will be spent is there is a good chance it won't be. Again, the fine print in the bill specifically states that the money for Martin's big NDP giveaway can only be taken from the government's annual surplus in each of the next two fiscal years -- and only after $4 billion has gone towards the debt.

In practice, here is how the money will flow -- or more likely, won't flow: First, nothing can flow anywhere until the government determines if it has a surplus, and that calculation cannot be done until the books are closed sometime around August of next year.

In other words, nothing is happening until long after Martin is expected to call the next election.

If there were, say, $3 billion left at the end of the government's fiscal year, the legislation stipulates $2 billion has to go to pay down the national debt and, in theory, the remaining $1 billion would go towards the promised $4.5 billion in NDP pet projects.

Balance from surplus

The balance of $3.5 billion would have to come from the surplus (if there is one after another $2 billion debt paydown) at the end of the second year, around August 2007.

Finance officials also caution that any year-end emergencies -- akin to the SARS outbreak or mad-cow crisis -- would also be funded from any surplus ahead of the Martin-Layton deal.

Of course, if the surplus is less than the $2 billion allocated for debt reduction, not a dime will flow to anything in the bill.

In that case, Layton will join the homeless, students and aboriginals as the latest Canadians to be screwed at Paul Martin's great government garage sale.

unsnipped<

cheers :) majere

PS unrelated:  having an unintelligent psycho-pathic bully, Tyson get the crap knocked out of him with millions in debt makes my next half hour go pretty good also.

The below quote is taken from the Conservative Policy and it states public and private health care.  Now I always thought I heard Harper say no two tier health care.

I must/or could be mistaken.

The below also states that all Canadians should have reasonable access to health care.   It is the word reasonable that must be defined before one can make a judgement.  Reasonable to Harper might not be reasonable to me or to most of the electorate.  I and the electorate would have to trust him and his judgement.

Now could Harper do better than Martin and the Libs?  To me the below is to vague to make a personal judgement.  Is it to vague for the electorate to make a judgement?

There is an  All Health Ministers Meeting taking place next week.  My three questions to them are very simple.

If doctors, equipment and operators are seriously lacking, with it taking money to pay and purchase, where is the money coming from? 
What is the total immediate payout required?
How much for each and every year thereafter for the next 5 years taking into account inflation?

I bet they will come up with numbers that of course are not enough.  Why?  It costs to much to actually catch up and therefore provincial leaders will have too much of a hard time back home (Martin has to appease to be appeased), and to add, the Libs of course have very little money left over...... borrowed billions from us taxpayers.

I bet you monthly health user fees will come back in vogue to pay for it.

I bet you that Harper does not realize he has to "proof"  his policies to unseat the status quo.  hint hint he is bringing forth therefore the onus is on him not the other way around.

Taken from the Conservative Policy:

quote>
51.  HEALTH CARE

i)  The Conservative Party believes all Canadians should have reasonable access to timely, quality health care services, regardless of their ability to pay.

ii)  The provinces and territories should have maximun flexibility to ensure the delivery of medically necessary health services within a universal, public health care system.  The Conservative Party supprts adding a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act to provide stable and trasparent federal funding.  We will work with the provinces in a co-operative and constructive manner.

iii)  Flexibility for the provinces and territories in the implementation of health services should include a balance of public and private delivery options.  (emphasis mine) This approach would ensure that health services remain publicly funded, while services are provided through the most appropriate public or private provider based on quality and cost.

iv)  We will work with the provinces and territories in the development of national quality indicators and objectives.

March 19 2005 page 19
unquote<

But then I find this on their wedsite  (versus Policy) under Health Care

quote>
Access to Health Care
The Conservative Party supports the national health care agreement. A Conservative government will cooperate with the provinces to ensure adequate funding, shorter waiting lists, and more doctors and nurses.

unquote<

cheers :)  majere