Free memberships and the PCAA. The real elephant in the room.

My first post on Team Mar giving away free memberships can be read here.  My second post which contains an audio clip of a volunteer stating "a donor is paying for student memberships" can be found here.

Both of those posts caused quite a stir and I must admit that it was entertaining watching Team Mar try to spin their way out of a 'problem', although having myself accused of fabricating the entire thing or being a partisan hack was not, but here is the rub; there are absolutely NO rules ( according to the PCAA who I called to clarify before Fridays blog post and now also verified by the Edmonton Sun) as to anyone, including the candidates, buying or paying for the memberships of others!

Yes it is true. Giving away 'free memberships' breaks absolutely no rules what so ever within the PCAA and if a donor paying for student memberships the PCAA has no problem what so ever with them doing so as long as they get their 5 bucks. Honestly I was shocked to hear this, as I am sure most of you are as well, and that is why I never wrote or made the accusation that Team Mar was breaking the rules as some have claimed, because the sad reality is that they had not.

It makes more sense now as to why my emails to some of the other candidates campaigns on this subject went unanswered. It makes you wonder just how wide spread a practice this is. ( BTW: For the record only the Doug Griffiths campaign responded to my questions and condemned the practice)

The reasons that this practice is wrong are numerous. First off the optics are terrible. Not only does it lead people to believe that the entire process is corrupt, it brings back visions of the 'old days' when some good ol' boys would load up buses with people they found on the street, handing them $5 to buy a membership to vote for their guy.  More serious than the optics is the very real possibility of someone just buying the leadership (and the Premiers office!). In theory with 250k of donated money someone could buy 50,000 memberships and pass them out to people, and 50,000 votes would have been more than enough to win the PCAA leadership on the first ballot in 2006. Sure it would not be an easy task to do for the average candidate but what about if that candidate had the backing of a large union/s (for example) where finding 50,000 people might not be that difficult of a task. The PCAA, and the Premiers job could be bought for a relatively small amount of cash and NOBODY could stop them!

This type of crap is not allowed in the Conservative Party at the federal level for good reason and looking towards Alberta, the Wildrose Alliance Party's constitution is very clear on this:

3.1.2 indicate their intention to join the Party by personally authorizing an application for membership in the Party...
3.2.1 have paid the prescribed membership fee, personally or through an immediate family member;  (PDF)

So why is it allowed in the PCAA?

You know this entire thing stinks; it is absolute nonsense on so many levels but it is something that I have come to expect as of late from the PCAA. Antiquated rules for an antiquated party.

What happens now?

I guess the candidates have a couple of options. Call out this unethical practice for what it is and promise to make changes to the rules so this embarrassment never happens again, or go grab the cheque book, pass out memberships, and rent the buses for Saturday.

Now that the elephant in the room has been revealed and everyone now knows that paying for memberships is not against the rules, your guess is as good as mine as to what will happen.

Team Mar volunteer: " ...a donor is paying for student memberships"

We get letters (and emails), lot and lots of letters...  And look what showed up in one of them.

  " a donor is paying for student memberships"      

Spin that.

Audio clip taken from a video taken Sept 7, 2011 at that very same Gary Mar table at the U of A where this picture was taken.  I decided to use audio only and not full video because the identity of this hard working volunteer is not important and I am not here to toss her under a bus. Team Mar seems to be doing a good enough job of that already.


Background: Last Friday I posted a picture of the Team Gary Mar table at the University of Alberta where it was quite obvious that they were giving away free memberships.

The response was quick from Mar spinners and supporters: "Complete fabrication guys." was the first, but seeing that the free membership sign was so prominently displayed in the photo, that line was going to go nowhere. Next up came what would become the main spin from Team Mar: "it was a mistake by a volunteer, nobody was instructed to do this. Problem was corrected right away."  Which was to be repeated, almost word for word many more times throughout the day. They were in the 'nothing to see here' mode and were only too happy to blame one poor volunteer ( there were at least 3 volunteers there, all of which could see the sign on the table and NONE doing anything about it )  hoping it would all go away. Honestly I have lost more respect for Team Mar over how they tried to spin their way out than I did about some 'free memberships' that were given out.


So what do you think?

An improperly trained volunteer, who knew enough about the memberships to say that they normally cost $5, who on the spur of the moment just happened to come up with this 'donor paying for student memberships' idea on her own, or perhaps is there is more to the story than what Team Mar is telling us? Personally I think that there is more to the story*, but given what we have already seen from Team Mar, I don't expect that we will really ever find out the full story and all I expect to see is more spin and damage control.


As I said in my original post: I guess ethics left the PCAA a long time ago.




*There may indeed be much more to the story but in the end it really doesn't matter; which is the real elephant in the room that nobody is yet talking about.

More on that elephant tomorrow.  (BTW and it isn't the 'donor'.)

UPDATE: More spin from Team Mar: 'campaign advisor Mark Kastner said the incident was a mistake.
“A new volunteer did put the sign down. It was corrected quickly and we don’t think any memberships were given away,” said Kastner in an email.'   To put it simply, BS!  Memberships WERE given away and in case there is doubt about this, there is a certain video...

Team Gary Mar gets caught giving away party memberships.

Can it really get any more blatant than this?  The following photo was taken September 7th on campus at the University of Alberta. In it you can clearly see members of Team Gary Mar openly offering anyone willing to fill out the paperwork a 'Free membership' in the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta; allowing them the opportunity to cast a vote for the next leader of the PCAA who will also be the next Premier of the Province of Alberta.

Now just get that demon dialer set up, give away* 20,000 memberships, and hope those free membership members all show up and vote.

*Not really a give away. Each membership does cost $5 and that must be paid to the PCAA, but all you need is just 1 big fat $100,000 donation to buy it pay for it and you get a great shot at the Premiers Office and all that goes with the job of leading the Province of Alberta.


A bargain at twice the price!


I guess ethics left the PCAA a long time ago.


Update Sept 10: Major update coming soon! Monday morning. 
  
And here is that update in a new post.

Incompetence at Edmonton City Hall.

It seems that the City Manager and the Transportation Department jumped the gun by not only ordering the new seasonal parking ban signs but by having city crews install them before City Council had made the decision to do so.

I wonder how many dollars that move will cost us?

Update: Councilor Bryan Anderson said it could be a waste of $600,000. If that number is accurate, transportation boss Bob Boutilier must be fired immediately and to use Boutilier's own words: "All I can say is, 'tough! I got no other way of saying it..." you cost the taxpayer $600,000, and you did so without the approval of the elected representatives of the citizens of Edmonton; you have to go. This is an embarrassment.


City Council has yet to make a final decision on the matter but according to news reports (and Councilor Don Iveson), as of right now the seasonal ban is on hold and all of those expensive installed signs are to be ignored.

Like a runaway train. Team Libby can't be stopped.

Okay; it may be a solar powered train at dusk but there is no denying that the ranks of Team Libby are growing!



Come join us won't you. You will be glad that you did.*






*Jack would have wanted it that way.

City of Edmonton puts up seasonal parking ban signs but City Council has yet to approve the move.

I take it as a sign of an already done deal (just how do they know it is a done deal is a good question though) as City of Edmonton workers are all over the place putting up Seasonal Parking ban signs throughout  Edmonton. But the matter does NOT come before City Council for discussion until theTransportation & Infrastructure Committee meeting September 6th at 9:30 am at City Hall where these reports will be debated.

Previous news stories here here and here ALL seem to suggest that the City was looking at this, and that NO decision was going to be made. Wrong.

So what happened?

According to someone I spoke to at City Hall they are claiming that the City Manager made the call under Bylaw 5590, which is the all encompassing traffic bylaw, but strangely enough 5590 makes NO mention at all of a seasonal parking ban.


So I ask: Who authorized these signs to be produced? Who gave the go ahead for them to be put up?  Can Council reverse this or are they powerless against the moves of Transportation and the City Manager? And lastly: why bother having council discuss this stuff at all if the City Manager can just do as he pleases without any concern as to what the citizens of Edmonton have to say?

Not that Transportation boss Bob Boutilier cares about what you think as he is already on record saying: "All I can say is, 'tough!' i got no other way of saying it. The situation we run into is, we got to keep the system operating." when citizen concerns over the seasonal parking ban were brought up.

BTW: Edmonton has had the Snow Route Bylaw since the 1970's which they did NOT even bother to use at all the last few years ( How do they know that it doesn't work if they didn't even bother trying it?) before some unelected civil servant ran off and passed enacted this new seasonal ban.

Google ad-sense gone awry.

Another case of Google ad-sense gone awry. Found this the other day over at Moose and Squirrel.

NDP exploiting Jack Layton for political gain.

It seems that the NDP have been flat out busted exploiting Jack Layton for their political gain, and do you know what?  Jack Layton would not have it any other way.

Before the hate mail starts flowing and I get piled on for being too insensitive or it being too soon after Jacks passing: I would like to point out that up until this post that I have refrained for the most part from making comment on his untimely death and the subsequent sometimes over the top coverage (msm,twitter,blogs), but
back to the topic at hand.

Who did not see this coming? Raise your hand if you honestly did not think that the NDP would use Jacks passing for their own gain. Somehow I doubt that there are many, if any, hands raised right now; not because you would look stupid sitting at your computer with your hand in the air but because if you are in any way familiar with the NDP and Canadian politics the answer is obvious; they would and in fact are doing just that.

When Ed Broadbent said on Wednesday: “We have to build on Jack’s legacy. And quickly.” he wasn't just sputtering nonsense because of his grief, he was telling the truth.
 
When Pat Martin tweeted: The only criticism Jack would have over the release of his letter is that there was no fundraising appeal at the bottom...I can say that... he too was telling it like it is and reminding us all about the real Jack Layton in the process.

The letter that Mr. Martin is referring to above was Jack Layton's message to Canadians, which a few days ago could get one tarred and feathered if they pointed out the obvious that it in part was political in nature.

We can expect to see plenty more and of course the inevitable 'Jack would' or 'wouldn't want' that is already making its way out into the political world.

That is politics. It is what it is.

I did not know Layton personally but I do know that he was a masterful politician that knew the game inside and out and one who clearly relished in it. You can believe what you would like to believe but he was a very smart man and IMHO to deny that as the time of his passing neared that Jack never gave thought about how his own death could help out the party that he had recently led to its greatest electoral success, is an insult to the mans political skills and acumen.

Layton the politician would do what it takes and that is the Jack Layton that I choose to remember. The consummate politician, right up until the end and as it now appears, beyond.

Rest in peace Jack.

As I wrote earlier' that is politics' and as I also wrote earlier, 'Jack wouldn't have it any other way'.


Update: The CP has something with an eerily similar feel: Politicization of Layton's death was what he wanted. 

Saturday update: "this mass outbreak of recreational grief..."

Jack Layton 1950-2011

“We deeply regret to inform you that the Honourable Jack Layton, leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, passed away at 4:45 a.m. today,” his family said in a statement. “He passed away peacefully at his home surrounded by family and loved ones. Details of Mr. Layton’s funeral arrangements will be forthcoming,"

Layton was 61.

 Rest in Peace Jack.


CTV

CBC Video tribute

CP

PM Harper: I know one thing: Jack gave his fight against cancer everything he had. Indeed, Jack never backed down from any fight.
 

I wonder if Heather Mallick's employers have apologies pre-printed when they hire her.

Because it seems that they do have to make a few of them.

The latest comes from Mallick's latest employer, The Toronto Star:

"A column by Heather Mallick on July 28 contained a number of inaccurate statements about the well-known British journalist and author Melanie Phillips.

Ms. Phillips has expressed her horror at the slaughter at Utoya, Norway in a clear and unambiguous way, writing “there can be no excuse, justification or rationale whatsoever for the atrocity perpetrated by Anders Behring Breivik.”

The column made reference to Ms. Phillips’ writings in an entirely misleading and inappropriate manner.

The defamatory article has been removed from our website.

The Star and Ms. Mallick regret the errors and apologize to Ms. Phillips."



And here is a report from the CBC Ombudsman on a column Mallick wrote while she was an employee of the CBC. That too has been removed from the CBC website but is available to read here. Notice a trend?


HT to Blazing Cat Fur who has a screenshot of the text of the now deleted Star column which can be seen here. 

What is CBC Policy on publishing the names of suspects... That depends.

What exactly is CBC News Policy on the naming of suspects?

Here is what CBC stated was their policy in regards to publishing the names/pictures of suspects
"CBC News' practice is not to name suspects, and therefore is not publishing the names or photos of the suspects at this time."  (Note: The original wording in that story read "“CBC News is not publishing the names or photos of the suspects at this time” and it was changed sometime after the original story hit their website.)

Since that story hit the web others have found examples of CBC doing the exact opposite and naming suspects, but today the CBC has really outdone themselves and have hit the trifecta today with this story. "Edmonton police are searching for a 17-year-old woman who is allegedly having unprotected sex without disclosing her HIV-positive status."

Not only did they publish the photo and name a 'suspect', something they claimed they do not do, but this particular suspect is a 17 yrs old minor who now has had what most would consider to be her private medical information posted by the CBC on the internet!

I think we need a clarity act for CBC Policy.

BTW: I hope that Kirk LaPointe, the CBC Ombudsman, (whom I have great respect for) gets on this ASAP.

2000 Days

Congratulations PM Harper on your 2000th day in office. Contrary to what the screaming leftists claimed would happen if the Conservatives were to be ever elected (The Campaign of Fear™ ), Canada is in good shape and leading the way.


PM Harper is currently in 10th place on the list of longest serving PM's, with the next Federal Election scheduled for October 19, 2015. 

Best Political book from the last 25 years.

From the Samara website:

"Samara and the Writers’ Trust of Canada are proud to present the shortlist for the Best Canadian Political Books of the Last 25 years. This project draws attention to highly readable accounts of the issues and personalities that figure prominently in Canada’s history, with a goal of creating a resource for Canadians to learn about their political history and encourage readers to reflect on the contribution books make to our country's great political debates."


Take a look at the choices and vote for what you believe is the best political book of the last 25 years.

I agree with BC Blue myself and have cast my vote for Ezra's "Shakedown". A great read and it remains as relevant today as the day it was written.

Then:“I think it is contemptuous to tell people we are going to target your religion...

Now: Liberals launch outreach campaign in bid to recapture ethnic vote.

Oh oh. This isn't going to sit well with Michael Ignatieff or all of the others who took offense to the CPC's efforts in this area.

Michael Ignatieff: “I think it is contemptuous to tell people we are going to target your religion, we are going to target your ethnicity, we are going to target your national origins. No! We must target the fact they are Canadian citizens.”

“I don’t like the word “ethnic,” Ignatieff said, in French. “A Sikh is a Canadian, a Hindu is a Canadian, a Muslim is Canadian, a Tamil is a Canadian.”

What about the current placeholder err leader Bob Rae?  Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae suggested the initiative was more about winning support in ethnic communities — groups that Mr. Kenney has been actively courting for the Harper government in its attempts to build a majority government.
“It has much more to do with Canadian domestic politics than it has to do with the necessity of having a coherent strategy for the promotion of democracy and human rights,” said Mr. Rae.
“It's more a domestic strategy than a foreign affairs strategy.” (ht BC Blue)

BTW how do you reach out to the 'ethnic vote' without a leader or any policy other than 'we will try super extra hard the next time to get it right'. Sorry Liberals but being totally rudderless does not inspire much confidence in your party to anyone, including the 'ethnics'.

My BSdar is going off on 'gaydar' study.

The term junk science comes to mind.

A new study led by researchers at the University of Toronto suggests that ovulation significantly improves a woman’s ability to judge a man’s sexual orientation.  The researchers found that the nearer a woman was to peak ovulation, the more accurate judge of sexual orientation she was."These findings suggest that women's accuracy may vary across the fertility cycle because men's sexual orientation is relevant to conception and thus of greater importance as women are nearer to ovulation," Nicholas Rule, lead author from the Department of Psychology at the University of Toronto, said in a release. (link1 link2)

The women did not meet, or speak to any of the men (gay or otherwise), they were able to determine that the men were gay or straight by only looking at photos of their faces. (The men were all equally attractive and wore the same facial expression, researchers said. Women were encouraged to use their intuition.)

There is so much wrong with this that I don't know where to begin. Do all gays look alike? (or straight males) Were the study males ( who self identified as gay or straight) totally honest? Did this Kreskin like ability of ovulating women reveal some straight males as being only in denial and fooling themselves because they really were gay; since 'science' doesn't lie. Did any ovulating lesbians participate, or do they not have the same power? I have more but I think I will might apply for funding to conduct my own study to disprove, and I bet it would be quite easy to do so, this study that was no doubt partially funded by your tax dollars.

I hope the Iranians or any other non gay friendly country doesn't ever catch wind of this study. The next thing you know they will be putting ovulating women out in the street to identify gay men for 'special treatment'. After all, it is now science.

I wonder what GLAAD or any of the other gay rights organizations have to say about this.

NHL Awards Show Mixup

Just finished watching the NHL Awards show on PVR. I never noticed how much Mike Gillis looks like Steve Tambellini before. 

The Senate reform act. Coming soon to a Senate near you?

Take a look at the news release. 



Personally I think it is the best that can be expected without reopening the constitution.


The fact is that the PM gets to appoint Senators, it is his constitutional duty. IF Provinces elect candidates, and this could be anyone (even Duceppe), the PM should have to consider that democratic choice in his decision. He doesn't have to appoint them but heaven help him come next election if he does otherwise. (Quick someone ask Jack Layton if he would respect this if he ever became PM)

Oh and I believe this same principle applies to the legislation, ( again more like a suggestion per our constitution) of the PM not calling an early election in a majority situation. He can do it but come that election....toast.



As I said, the best that can be expected without opening up that can o' worms that is our Constitution.

Update: Canadian Sense had a great idea  "A substantial cut in pay/benefits for upper chamber would help with turnover and not require Constitutional talks."

That would get some of those hanging around just for the perks to willingly depart sooner.  Making it a volunteer position could also be an option....

 Another update: Pat Martin agrees! 

Vancouver riots: Preston Manning's fault

Deluded article from Murray Dobbin that takes the usual lefty line and applies it to the Vancouver riots by blaming others for the actions of the rioters. 

Yes, of course, it is a big stretch to suggest that Preston Manning, the former head of the Reform Party had anything to do with the rioting in Vancouver after the hockey game. But in trying to determine what is at the root of this mindless violence – and the almost equally mindless spectator sport of watching the violence and doing nothing – we need to examine just how it could be that so many young men’s lives are so meaningless. I think it comes down to community – or rather its dramatic decline – a deliberate by-product of neo-liberalism and consumerism.   

Read the rest here

( BTW I will wager every penny I have that most of those involved in the rioting were not CPC supporters, if they voted at all)

Here is one poor lost young man's story. ( A member of our national Water polo team, or should I say used to be a member of...) 

If you're going to Vancouver BC...

If you're going to Vancouver BC.
Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair.
If you're going to Vancouver BC.
You're going to meet some freaky people there.

 Now maybe Canadians will get the chance to see that hidden NDP constitution.

Welcome to the spotlight NDP.


Apologies to Scott McKenzie.







Interesting: Taking socialism out of the NDP constitution.

PM Harper: "Conservative values are Canadians values."

And I agree with the Prime Minister, they are.


From Canoe.ca

Conservative values are Canadians values, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told his new team of MPs Wednesday, but urged them to stay "humble" as they kicked off their majority mandate.


Throne Speech Friday June 3rd and the budget comes down Monday the 6th

Jennifer Ditchburn in search of unhappy Conservatives.

Jennifer Ditchburn is no fan of the Conservatives, as anyone who has ever read her stuff is keenly aware, and today is no exception as she finds a couple of unhappy Quebec Conservatives and writes about their disillusionment and uses the opportunity to again bring up the issue of weighing ridings for leadership votes, which will be brought up at the convention along with dozens of other proposals.

Anything that works negatively to the conservatives I guess.

BTW I always thought that candidates and their campaigns were responsible for their own signage. (Can you imagine what Elections Canada would do if the Party actually purchased and distributed the signs!)

Here is some more on Jennifer from this blog, and some from BC Blue including her big breaking story on Helena Guergis and the town playboy.

The good news keeps coming!

Chrysler has repaid their 1.7 Billion in loans received from the governments of Canada and Ontario.

StatsCan: The Canadian economy expanded 3.9% in the first quarter of 2011.

Some action on the Senate.


And the House has yet to sit for even one day of Parl41.


Much more to come.

The end of the long gun registry.The end of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly. The end of party subsidies...

NDP spin on new MPJean-Francois Larose's resume. #Fail

More resume problems for the NDP and their pathetic attempt to spin their way out of it.*

This past Friday QMI learned that the new NDP MP for a federal riding north of Montreal does not have a degree from the University of Montreal, contrary to what his official electoral biography stated. This after another similiar resume incident with their most famous MP, Ruth Ellen Brosseau.

Like with Brosseau, the NDP spin on Lerose was that it was a staffers error: On Brosseau the story was that a staffer had "inadvertently" changed the wording, embellishing her resumé. On Lerose we hear of a similar tale using similar words describing how a NDP staffer (now gone)  had made an "inadvertent change" to Lerose's resume posted on the party’s website.

Only with Brosseau the spin was at least plausible, staffers do make mistakes and there is really no reason not to take the NDP's word for what happened, but with Larose the NDP spin is so ridiculous that it insults the intelligence because this is not the first time that this has "inadvertently" happened. "The false credentials were also posted about Larose on the La Presse newspaper website when he ran for in the Montreal municipal election in 2009." So unless that very same NDP staffer wrote the bio in 2009 and again in 2011, I have some serious doubts that it was their fault in the least.

BTW what happened to that staffer? The NDP claim that they no longer work for the NDP but why is that?
Were they fired? Did they resign? Were the pushed to resign? We don't know and so far the media couldn't seem to care less about the NDP lying to them or about what happened to the staffer that the NDP claim was responsible. ( anyone remember certain MSM types mocking the CPC when they blamed a staffer for anything?)


HT BC Blue.

Related: More spin, also total BS that the media bought, from the NDP and Jack Layton's infamous shove to get some camera time for himself.


*Which appears to have worked because judging from the lack of questions and coverage, our MSM seems to have swallowed the BS spin from the NDP. 

Another #fail from Canada's political journalists.

And now the end is near.....

Number one on the list: An end to taxpayer subsidies for political parties.


Next up: The oppressive Canadian Wheat Board and soon to follow, the long gun registry.

And for an added bonus some common sense on cap and trade and incandescent light bulbs!

The left is going to go nuts.


For your daily media fear-mongering fix we have Lawrence Martin trying to convince everyone that the media is in the PM's pocket.

Alfred Apps and the Liberal Party: Passing on the blame.

From the Globe and Mail: " In a Facebook post Thursday, Mr. Apps warned Liberals “not to put the cart before the horse.”

“Very gratified with the goodwill, as well as the honest and constructive dialogue with our MPs and Senators,” he said of the caucus meeting. “Even the high emotions are respected, after all it was a devastating defeat and desire to fix blame is totally understandable. But we should move on.”
Meanwhile, he said he and the party executive had nothing to do with the strategy behind the losing campaign. He said he delivered on his part of the job – supplying the money to fund the campaign. "

Sure Alf, aside from going down to the US to recruit Michael Ignatieff for the leaders job and then falsely using the coalition crisis as an excuse to trample the Liberal Party constitution and voice of the grassroots to appoint Ignatieff as leader, you the party executive had no part at all in the defeat.

Sigh. When will these guys learn. Ignoring the grassroots party members is never a good idea, and trying to re-write history to spin your own people is even worse.

Oh and there is also this about the party not authorizing funds to the struggling Ignatieff campaign in the last couple of weeks of the election campaign.

Previous entries on Alfred Apps.

Chretien urges PM Harper not to follow through on election promise.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper should reconsider his vow to end the direct per-vote subsidy for political parties, says former prime minister Jean Chrétien.

Sort of arrogant, no? Having a former PM ask the current PM not to follow through on his election promises?

Thank you Jean, but cutting party subsidies was an election platform promise, in fact I would call it a major plank of that platform, and the Conservatives were elected on that platform. The Conservative Party of Canada is not the Liberal Party where promises to abolish the GST or the numerous times they promised a national child care system are never followed through on.  This PM will follow through on his platform promise.

If a party's own members do not care enough to support that party with their own money, why should the taxpayer have to prop them up?

Did Quebec reject the Bloc to make a coalition easier?

There has been lots written the last couple of days about the collapse of the Bloc and the NDP surge in Quebec and so far I have not read anything that really explains what happened. Did BQ supporters all wake up one day and decide to toss out a party that for years has enjoyed their support because of something Duceppe did or did not do? Were they all taken in by the guy from downtown Toronto with the big smile and equally big spending promises? 

While I don't claim to know the answer I do have some thoughts and a possible piece of the puzzle as to why Bloc supporters decided to abandon their party and support the NDP.

The coalition.

Whenever the idea of a coalition has been discussed it has been quite clear that having Bloc MPs as part of any coalition was not to the liking of most Canadians. During the original coalition crisis both the Liberals and NDP were desperately trying to spin that the Bloc were not actually part of the coalition, only that they would be supporting it, and Ignatieff himself had this to say as to why he didn't enter into the deal he had signed: "I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but I turned it down because I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up," 

Having separatist Bloc MP's either in or supporting a coalition government did not fly in 2008 and was never going to go over well with Canadians. Bloc supporters were as aware of this problem as much as anyone else but what to do about it.

The solution: Drop the Bloc and elect enough NDP MPs so that a coalition would not only be legitimate but it would have a much better chance of being accepted by the rest of Canada.

It makes sense and possibly explains why dedicated separatists tossed their own party and blindly voted for NDP candidates some of which were barely old enough to vote themselves, did not speak French, or have NEVER even been to the riding in which they were running in.

Your thoughts?

Some Local Campaign 2011 Musings.

Yesterday around noon I dropped off my last load of lawn signs officially ending, for myself at least, the 2011 election campaign. During the past 40 days I have run the gamut of emotions from depressing lows to exhilarating highs, with the added bonus of running myself to near exhaustion at times in the process, and now that I have some free time I thought I would put together a post on some of my election 2011 thoughts and experiences from the local level. From the time the writ was dropped until the last sign was removed, it was 40 days that I will not soon forget.

 The early days consisted mostly of helping to get the local campaign office up and running, which in our case consisted of turning a rather large empty space into the hub of the local campaign, and getting the signs out. Desks and furniture had to be brought in, temporary walls/dividers had to be fashioned, equipment such as computers, phones, copiers, shredders and even TVs had to be located brought in and hooked up, and the volunteers organized. Aside from some early grunt work of hauling things around and some minor 'construction' work, the set up of the office was capably handled by many others; I worked more on getting the signs out.

When the writ was dropped on the last weekend of March there was 3 feet of snow in my yard, there were huge windrows along every road, and the ground frozen solid, not the best situation to be putting out election signs. The signs were being stored in a shed on a rural property in the riding and a Bobcat had to be used to clear a path through the snow just to get access. But we got them out and we got them up. Within 2 days all major and minor intersections in the riding had signs placed in all directions, but because the ground was still frozen they had to be placed in the deep snow and within a couple of weeks every single sign had to be re-visited and put solidly into the ground.

More on signs: There were plenty of stories during the campaign on sign vandalism etc and while there were some places more effected than others, I think it is fair to say that EVERY candidate had to face some type of sign vandalism.  If you have ever dealt with signs in a campaign you can sort of tell who is going after your signage and why; when you see a bunch of signs knocked over or pulled out ( including those from your opponent) it is a good guess that it is just kids who did so as they walked by. It is when only your teams signs that get hit while the oppositions remain standing, or when your signs have be damaged or made non reusable ( no details but sign people know what I am talking about) that the political motive questions start being asked. Why people do it is beyond me, it is just stupid not mention illegal, but no matter the reasons when they knock 'em down, someone has to go out there and stand 'em back up.  BTW there were more than a few times that I stood up NDP signs that were knocked down along side our own ( You're welcome Nadine).

Blogging: One of the regrets that I do have was not doing enough blogging during the campaign. You would think that blogging would be a no brainer as it is a political bloggers 'busy season', but the time and my energy level were just not there. I have to look at my drafts but I can wager that I have at least 10 blog entries sitting there in various stages of completion that I started but did not finish/publish for various reasons. I had a great series that I had planned on Ignatieff, aka Mr. Democracy, for the final week of the campaign but to be honest I felt that it was a waste of time and towards the end I started feeling sorry for the guy and didn't want to pile on. On the positive side I did follow closely much of the wonderful work my fellow Blogging Tories did during the campaign and when I had the time I did quite a bit of Tweeting (a quick tweet is much faster than writing a blog post).  Also my long running issue with Scott Reid and the CBC was finally resolved thanks to the Ombudsman, but even there what should have been a few days worth of good material only made it into a single blog post.


Door-Knocking: While I did quite a few other things during the course of the campaign, it was door-knocking that took up the most of my time and provided some of the most enjoyable moments along with some of the most depressing moments of the 2011 campaign. It is my favorite election activity as I enjoy going out and knocking on doors meeting people face to face getting instant feedback, and one of the more memorable trips occurred in the middle of a spring snow storm when I met up in Millwoods with the candidate and blogged about here. The trips into Edmonton-Strathcona though were memorable for much different reasons. The first trips I made into E-S were great; lots of positive feedback and when we left there were as many Hastman lawn signs out as there were Duncan signs. But those first trips were in polls on the edge of the riding and as we got closer to the University area things became much different. Most of people I met at the door were polite enough, although having a door slammed in your face even just once tends to make for a bad day, but it was clear that most of those met were Duncan supporters and in these polls the Duncan signs were everywhere. On one particular street there were 15 homes, 9 of which had Linda Duncan signs on the lawn, and this was not an anomaly as it was near impossible to go to more than 5-6 homes anywhere in these polls and not encounter an Orange NDP sign. Needless to say that after a couple of days of that sort of thing that ones confidence goes down somewhat and you become unsure if you are having any impact at all.


Election night: When it was all over and the votes counted we had won in Edmonton Millwoods Beaumont, lost in Edmonton Strathcona, consumed an over abundance of chicken wings, and for the first time ever the CPC had enough seats to form a majority government, but all I could really think about was that we didn't have to do this again for another 4 1/2 years and that in 2015 my daughter will be eligible to vote for the very first time.

It was over but for the clean up, which would begin bright and early Tuesday morning.


The campaign started when the government fell on March 25 on a Liberal motion of non confidence ( Insert joke of your choice here) the political situation for the Conservatives was not great, the weather was cold and miserable, and there was still 3 ft of snow on my front lawn. 40 days later and we now have a majority government, the sun is shining, the snow gone, my grass is starting to turn green and flowers are starting to come up.

It was worth all of the work.

2011 Election: What happened in Edmonton Strathcona.

The contest in Edmonton-Strathcona between Linda Duncan of the NDP and Ryan Hastman of the Conservative Party was considered a riding to watch by many because it was the only riding in Alberta not held by the Conservatives. Duncan won the riding in the 2008 campaign defeating Rahim Jaffer by a slim 463 vote margin and it had been no secret that the CPC wanted it back and that the NDP would stop at nothing to hold it.

The end results: Turnout: 48,763 out of 71,050 electors. 68.6%

NDP   Duncan     26,134     53.6%
CPC   Hastman   19,755     40.5%

LPC   Sinclair       1,363      2.8%

GPC   Fehr           1,127       2.3%




So what happened in Edmonton Strathcona?

The best summation that I can make is that the election was won by the Linda Duncan NDP campaign and that it was not 'lost' by the Ryan Hastman team. I know how that may sound like I am trying to blow smoke somewhere but it really is the best explanation of the reality in the Edm Strathcona race.

Full disclosure: On a few occasions during the 2011 election I actively campaigned (mostly door knocking) for Ryan Hastman in Edmonton Strathcona.

The NDP pulled out all of the stops in an attempt to hold the riding which they called "Battleground Alberta" in a national fund-raising campaign.They had volunteers from all over descended to do the ground work (there were rumours of paid door knocking crews but with the numbers of volunteers the NDP had at their disposal from provincial assets I have my doubts), and even Jack Layton came to town on two separate occasions to rally the troops and local dipper voters. They were funded, had the man power, were well prepared, and ran a smart and effective campaign.

On the CPC side similiar can also be said. They were well funded, had the man power, were well prepared, and ran a smart and effective campaign but they faced an uphill battle from the beginning as well as some obstacles and challenges that the Duncan campaign did not. Challenges such as the power of incumbency and demographics not seen in other Edmonton area ridings.

Getting rid of a sitting MP is not generally a easy task as people tend to re elect people they know and are 'familiar' with, and when that MP is believed to be doing a decent job it is even more difficult to accomplish.  I heard it myself at the doors from people who would be considered to be conservative supporters that they thought that she was doing a decent job on the local level as their MP, they had issues with her and the positions she and the NDP took in Ottawa, but not her work at the constituency level. This is sort of a double whammy because one of the biggest reasons why voters turned to Duncan in the first place was because Jaffer was considered by many to be an absent MP. I don't want to go into the demographics too much other than the say that the riding contains the 'hipster' areas of Whyte Avenue and old Strathcona as well as the Campus of the University of Alberta. To say the riding is unique for Edmonton or even Alberta would not be an understatement.

It was an uphill battle to begin with and to make matters worse the Hastman campaign not only had to fight a formidable NDP campaign, incumbency and the unique demographics, they would have to face intangibles which nobody could plan for; namely the almost complete collapse of the Liberal vote and the unexpected surge of the NDP nationally. In 2006 the Liberal candidate received over 9,000 votes under the Paul Martin banner, in 2008 they received over 4000 while under Dion, (which many assumed would be the low point for  the Libs and that under Iggy they would at least hold that vote if not increase it), but that was a very wrong assumption as their candidate received only 1,363 votes in total. As for the surge; I am not sure how many more votes were actually gained from it in the riding on the whole, I don't believe it was that many but one thing I am sure about is that it fired up their staff and volunteers and it galvanized the already existing vote/support in the only NDP riding in Alberta.


In the end Linda Duncan and her team deserve full credit for the victory that they worked so hard to obtain and Ryan can take heart in knowing that he and his team ran one hell of a campaign* against almost impossible odds.



* If there is one positive in this it is that Ryan has proven himself to be capable candidate and a tireless formidable campaigner. Having won a close nomination race in June 17th 2009 he had knocked on 9,000 doors before the one year anniversary of that nomination passed and when the writ was dropped hit the ground running, not stopping until it was over. He performed well in the campaign and even though it was not rewarded with a win at the ballot box, his determination, work ethic, and energy didn't go unnoticed; causing even the NDP to put extra money and resources into the riding into an effort to beat Hastman and hold the riding. I would say that is an accomplishment in itself.

We did it: A Conservative Majority.

And now we don't have to do it again for 4 years!

A big thank you to all the volunteers from across the country that worked so hard during the campaign to reach our goal. Take a bow, as it would not have happened without you.

 There will be much to write about over the coming days, including what happened in Edm Strathcona and of course on the future, or rather lack of a future for the Liberals, but first some much needed sleep and then there is a little matter of a few hundred signs that have to be dealt with.

Election Day 2011.

Get out and vote. Canada deserves a strong stable majority government and as the news from earlier this evening reminds us, we also need a proven leader at the helm in these difficult times. Go with the guy with the proven 5 yr record. See you on the other side.

Comments have been put on moderation and there will be no updates until after the polls close in BC.

Curse you and your archaic rules Elections Canada!

It is as simple as this.

You only have to look at the last 5 yrs under a Conservative government and their record and compare it to the oppositions of 5 yrs of smear/fear while they accomplished nothing constructive for Canadians to know who you should be voting for come Monday.

A conservative majority not only means stability by not turning over the reigns of government with its taxation and economic policy powers to the big spending left leaning opposition Liberals, NDP, Bloc (or any combination of), it alse ensures that there is not another 350 million dollar election for at least another 4 yrs.

You know what to do.

Look around today at your own situation and that of your country, and get out and vote Conservative tomorrow!

Rallying the base: Thanks Jack!

If there is one thing that should gets conservatives out to vote on Monday it is the threat of Jack Layton as PM.

Please remind everyone you know or run into over the next couple of days just how important it is to get out to the polls on Monday, and if you are having trouble convincing them just have them repeat the phrase " Jack Layton as Prime Minister" a couple of time for it to sink in.


The post I put up the day the government fell still applies today, even more so.


This is nowhere near being over and there is still much work to do. Lets get it done.

Jack Layton says his cap and trade carbon plan will not increase gas prices.

From Rosemary Barton with Layton on the campaign trail: Layton on cap-and-trade: will it increase gas prices? No.

He may be right in one aspect. The NDP plan won't JUST increase gas prices, it will increase the price on everything including home heating which he claims that he wants to reduce and is a major part of his platform.

Unbelievable.

Sorry Jack, but when business gets hit with any type of increase, taxes or otherwise, it gets passed on to their customers in the end, and someone who wants to be PM should know this and be honest enough to admit it.

Update: Jack Mintz has determined that the NDP policy will raise gas prices by $0.10/litre, rising by 2014 to an additional $0.18/litre.

Layton goes after oil companies.

I think it may be time for some Liberal EDA's to start worrying.

Rumors were circulation before the start of the election that the Liberal Party of Canada was having trouble obtaining a bank loan to finance any possible upcoming election campaign and that some of the financially better off Liberal EDA's had to co-sign and provide 'collateral' in order for them to receive a bank loan.

I personally do not know the details or if any of that is true but it sort of makes sense looking at it from the perspective of any bank. They were being asked to loan money to a political party with fund-raising difficulties and who were behind in the polls, in order to fight an election that if they lost would cut off their prime source of income. ( Proposed Conservative plan to stop taxpayer funded party subsidies)  When presented with the above it is easy to see why a bank would be looking for some sort of collateral before approving such a potentially risky loan.

If those rumours are true, I think it might be time for those EDA's that may have provided collateral for the Liberal Party to obtain a loan to start worrying.

Albertaardvark 1, CBC 0. Scott Reid and the CBC correct an error

It only took a full year, many emails, and finally the big stick of the CBC Ombudsman to make it so, but Scott Reid and CBC's Power and Politics have finally corrected an error made April 1st 2010.

The original statement:

"He (Kory Teneycke) along with that, sort of, you know, paid professional brigand of ah, of ah bloggers that work for the Conservative Party; those guys can mobilize a grassroots movement in the snap of a fingers......

Here is the original post on the subject. With video.

Other related posts on the subject.

The CBC responds.

The CBC responds pt 2.


I would like to thank Kirk LaPointe, the CBC Ombudsman, for the work he did on finally getting this issue  resolved and getting the record corrected.

Excerpt of the Ombudsman's finding: (pdf)

I am writing with regard to your complaint April 15, 2010, and request May 6, 2010, for a review by this Office concerning remarks made on the CBC News Network program, Power & Politics, on April 1, 2010.

Let me first apologize for the time it has taken to conduct this review. When I assumed this role last November, I helped my predecessor deal with a substantial backlog. Work on this continues, but that is of little consolation to you. Too much time has passed in dealing with this, and I regret the manner in which the complaint has been processed. Thank you for your patience.

Since your complaint, CBC has updated its Journalistic Standards and Practices. Given that your complaint preceded the update, the previous policy will apply to your request.

REVIEW

The complainant wrote CBC News shortly after he heard commentator Scott Reid on the CBC News Network program, Power & Politics, on April 1, 2010.

Reid, a former senior Liberal Party aide who appeared with Conservative Jaime Watt on the regular Point of Order panel in the program, was discussing the ability ofConservative Party supporters to mobilize support. In an animated exchange, he indicated those bloggers were paid.

“He (Kory Teneckye), along with that, sort of, you know, paid professional brigand of ah, bloggers, that work for the Conservative Party — they can mobilize support in the snap of a finger,” Reid said in the taped segment. He wasn’t challenged by Watt in their debate.

The complainant wrote CBC News to dispute the assertion that the bloggers were paid by the Conservatives. The managing editor of CBC’s Parliamentary Bureau, Paul Hambleton, wrote back April 13, 2010 to acknowledge the error and to thank the complainant for setting the record straight.

The complainant pursued his concerns, indicating that the remark violated CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices in effect at the time.

The executive editor for CBC News, Esther Enkin, wrote the complainant April 21, 2010, to note Hambleton’s email. She said that CBC regretted the error. She also said she did not expect Reid to apologize but that he would correct his remarks when the subject of partisan blogs next came up in the segment of the program “at an early opportunity.”

CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices policy in effect at the time of the complaint included provisions relevant to correcting errors. It said CBC would not “hesitate to admit and correct an error when it is established that one has been made. To do otherwise or to defend a program exhibiting poor taste or unacceptable ethics or containing errors would lead inevitably to loss of credibility by the CBC.”
The policy noted that the senior officer in news and information, or his or her delegate, should be consulted to determine the nature and time of any correction.

The complainant said it was possible that the subject of partisan blogs might not come up “until 2015” and asked if it “would be reasonable to wait that long for the correction to be made.”

Reid has since corrected his statement on the program. He said April 21, 2011, that he had looked into the matter and found no evidence the bloggers were ever paid. He retracted his remarks and apologized. Host Evan Solomon also apologized on the program for taking this long.

CONCLUSION

Mistakes are made regularly in journalism. Academic studies indicate roughly one in two stories contain a factual error, a rate that hasn’t changed much over the decades despite better educated journalists and more sophisticated and familiar guest commentators.

Live television debate — even when it is taped without editing — often leads to spontaneous hyperbole or overstatement to try to make a point or to respond.

What has changed, and for the better, have been processes to identify and correct the record for the public. CBC has a rigorous policy of scrutinizing its work, accepting public review of it, and holding itself accountable through transparent mechanisms to demonstrate its will to be accurate and fair-minded.

Even when contracted commentators make an error, CBC’s approach has been to acknowledge that wrong was wrong and for the program in which they appeared to address the mistake promptly. Its policy of acknowledgment is a virtue in contributing to overall integrity and often a distinguishing and differentiating feature in broadcast news.

In this instance, the statement didn’t receive a quick fix. Obviously, any error left untended only becomes more problematic to correct. Even when efforts are made by programmers to address the initial mistake, some of its viewers will never know it was corrected.

In correspondence with the complainant, CBC acknowledged the error and indicated it would make mention of the issue when the subject next arose on the program. Rather than wait indefinitely for the next discussion on partisan blogs, the program could have more quickly fulfilled its standards and practices with a correction at the earliest opportunity.

I am satisfied there was no intent to avoid addressing the matter. There was an expectation the opportunity would arise soon, and when it didn’t, the correction slipped into the cracks. It is noteworthy that host Evan Solomon apologized on the air for the time it took to address the matter. The correction was made amid an election campaign, when attention on politics is high and the correction’s impact might be greatest.

Sincerely,
Kirk LaPointe.

Advice the Liberals ignored. 3 elections in a row!

The Liberals are in trouble in the 2011 campaign and just like 2006 and again in 2008 they have decided to go negative and again trot out the  The Campaign of Fear™ in an effort to scare Canadians into not voting for a Conservative government.
 
It won't work this time either and the Liberals were advised years ago by one of their top strategists as to why. The advice rings even truer today.

(Warren Kinsella)

January 5th, 2006:
"TO: LIBERAL CAMPAIGN BOSSES
FROM: YOUR REALLY GOOD PAL WARREN
RE: TOP SECRET AND SUPER CONFIDENTIAL STUFF
Dear guys: it won't work. Did last time, won't this time. Have a nice two weeks, and good luck in your return to the Liberian shipping industry.

...

As I related to a group of scary-smart U of T political science students last night, there are three reasons for this:

One, every Canadian who is not comatose understands that Harper can't form a majority government, even if he wants to, and he does. Paul Martin's top-notch handling of the Quebec file means federalism is hooped in la belle province for the forseeable future. The numbers for a majority aren't there. Folks know that.

Two, (Shameless Book Plug Alert) as noted in no less an authority than Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics, in order for an attack ad to work, it has to be factual or, at the very least, plausible. The Liberals' planned Harper Is Satan™ campaign is not plausible. Canadians have now had a couple years to see how Harper operates. He isn't neceessarily(sp) someone you'd cuddle with on the basement couch to watch 'Friends' reruns, but neither is any other politician. In this case, familiarity breeds a comfort level.

Three, as my sage pal John Wright opined a while ago, Canadians gathered around family Christmas/Hannukah tables at the end of last month and came to a collective decision: we want change, and if Harper's the only way to achieve that, so be it. Pass the cranberries.

-----

Kinsella was right and again later in the same year he said almost the same thing. This time in a more concise way, but just as true.

October 16th, 2006: "The problem is that Stephen Harper doesn’t really scare Canadians anymore, or possibly never did. That’s the Grits’ problem. "


But they didn't listen in '06, and again in '08. Why would they bother to listen in 2011?

Lies, fear and smear. It is all they got.

Liberal candidate praises Layton and says Ignatieff is questionable.

This past Thursday evening at a local all candidates forum Mike Butler, the Liberal candidate for Edmonton-Millwoods-Beaumont, had some interesting things to say not only about his own leader but also about NDP leader Jack Layton as well.

Here is what Mike Butler had to say:

On Layton: "I love Jack Layton. I think he is a good guy, I think he is a solid guy."

On the Liberal Party and its leader: "The people are good, Michael Ignatieff is questionable sometimes",  before telling an interesting story about how Ignatieff wanted an election much earlier while we were still in a recession, "Michael Ignatieff wanted an election but our party knew it was the wrong thing to do and that is why we didn't call an election."

Not sure what to make of that last part about the Liberal Party stopping Ignatieff from forcing an election during the height of the recession, but from Mr. Butler's other comments it appears that he is not a big supporter or fan of the appointed leader of his party. A posting found on Facebook also seems to confirm this: "... our jaw dropped when Mike Butler came to our table and during conversation he stated he doesn't like or support Iggy as leader of liberal party, that he is to American with his ideas!!! Our table was floored!!! Lol"

It seems the the Liberal Party are not more united than they have been for a generation after all.


Was this a one off from a rogue Liberal candidate or the first of many more to come? My guess is that it is the latter but only time will tell; it is going to be an interesting final week of the 2011 campaign.

The "Butler Mobile": A pictorial Metaphor of the state of the Liberal Party?

I first spotted the "Butler Mobile" shortly after the writ was dropped but did not have a camera or cell phone with me so I was unable to get a picture and had not seen it since in-spite of putting on many kilometers in and around the riding. I had many people tell me that they had spotted it driving around or parked in various locations, including a church parking lot, but I was unable to find and photograph it until it showed up at a local all candidates forum* a couple of days ago.

Ladies and gentlemen I present to you the "Butler Mobile", a pictorial metaphor for the current state of the Liberal Party.

 Broken down looking with an attempt to spruce it up using a little bit of Iggy and some duct tape.

*Stay tuned. I have to verify and confirm a couple of things but I will having something very interesting up in the next couple of days on what was said at that forum.

Edmonton Strathcona Update: Complaint filed with Elections Canada.

The Hastman campaign has filed an official complaint with Elections Canada alleging that 550 names on the Edmonton-Strathcona registered voters list are linked to addresses that don't exist or are invalid. It seems that many of these addresses are linked to businesses, including a gas station and industrial companies, an empty field, storage lockers and private mail boxes.   "My team went through the entire voters list with a fine tooth comb and uncovered hundreds of illegitimate addresses," Hastman said. "It’s important that only valid addresses are included in the voters list."

And he is correct.

For those not aware: Edmonton Strathcona is currently the only non CPC riding in Alberta. It has been a political hot spot for some time and with the election has become a real political battlefield that I can guarantee you will show up on whatever channel you will be watching for election results May 2nd.


Spotted recently while door knocking in Edmonton Strathcona. The rare and elusive Liberal sign with the added bonus of it being in the same yard as a CPC sign! 

 

On a more serious note: Here is what is happening on a daily basis to CPC signs in Edm Strathcona.

 .

Strategic voting 2011 style.

We are all familiar with the concept of strategic voting where people don't vote for the candidate or party of their choice but rather vote against a candidate by choosing the candidate/party that is most likely to defeat them and cast their vote in that direction. During the last few elections most strategic voting campaigns have been directed at the conservatives in an effort to stop them from getting a majority but that was then and this is now.

With the recent NDP surge in the polls and particularly in Quebec I have to ask the following: How many Liberals are now going to support the Conservative Party in an effort to stop the NDP from gaining more seats than the Liberals and becoming the official opposition? (which is now a distinct possibility)

I know some Liberals will laugh at the suggestion of ever supporting conservatives but they should ask themselves what would happen to the Liberal Party of Canada if Jack Layton and the NDP ever became the leader of the official opposition in Canada.

Short answer: It would be all over for the LPC a party. Irrelevancy does that.


Welcome to strategic voting 2011 style.

Unanswered questions from November 2008 and some from today.

October 14th 2008: Canada holds a federal election resulting in a conservative minority government.

November 19th 2008: The Speech from the Throne.

November 27th 2008: The Government releases its economic update

November 29th 2008: The NDP hold a conference call telling their MPs about the secret coalition talks with the Liberals and Bloc.

In the taped conversation (highlights below in video, with complete version available here. pt1 and pt 2) Jack Layton speaks about the secret negotiations with the Liberals and the Bloc on a coalition and the NDP role. Calling it a "catalytic role actually" and bragging about how the NDP were the "glue" for all of this and how they had "prepared for the opportunity" and because they had made those preparations early they were ready when an opportunity came up.

Of note are the following quotes from Jack Layton:

"This whole thing would not have happened if the moves hadn't been made with the Bloc to lock them in early."   "The first part was done a long time ago, um I won't go into details."




  
To my knowledge Jack Layton has NEVER stated exactly when those negotiations with the Bloc first started and I am unsure if he was even specifically asked that question by our MSM at any time since Nov 2008. Thomas Mulcair at the time stated that his party started talking with the Bloc only after the government's Nov. 19 Throne Speech, but if you listen to Layton's words it seems clear that these negotiations had begun more than just one week (The first part was done a long time ago) before this conference call occurred and for all we know the talks could have started 1 month earlier during the election campaign itself.

So here we are 2 1/2 yrs later and in another election campaign where the MSM are following the leaders across the country and covering their every word.  Isn't it about time that they asked Jack Layton to come clean on the 2008 negotiation time-line details and more importantly ask ALL of the leaders if ANY such negotiations ( by anyone within their respective parties) have occurred recently or are occurring at this time?

The MSM blew it on their coverage in 2008. Will they do the same thing in 2011?

Do your job and ask the damn questions that Canadians want to know about!

While Michael Ignatieff was telling Canadians that he was going to take the high road...

the Liberal Party of Canada, with full knowledge of Michael Ignatieff, was planning their attack ad campaign.

"... a senior Liberal official said the party strategy dating back six months ago was to launch these attack ads at this particular phase in the campaign – “whether we were 10 points up or 10 points down,”


Ignatieff, like every other Liberal leader after Chretien, made a promise that the Liberals would not go negative and then he broke that promise, but more importantly Ignatieff was making that promise to Canadians AFTER the attack ad strategy was planned.

What the hell does that say about the character of Michael Ignatieff.

 BTW the Liberals have been completely busted on a quote by the PM in their health care scare ad. And by completely busted I mean Kady busted. - "Seriously, LPC, just apologize, edit the ad and move on. There is no earthly defence for allowing a misattribution to stand"

Further update: The geniuses at the Liberal Party have decided to release the link to where they got the quote from, but in doing so show that they KNEW it was a lie.  (BTW the LPC used this quote and attributed it to the real author back in 2004, but today claim that they didn't know the truth)

I spoke too soon. The LPC have attempted to scrub the internet of their link to the page that released the link showing that they were lying.

Trying to keep up with the Liberal lies and attempts at cover-up are starting to confuse me.

Who better to lead Canada if the Party Quebecois gains power: A CPC majority or a Coalition backed by the Bloc?

The Bloc loves instability in Ottawa and what could possibly create more instability than a Party Quebecois government in Quebec pushing for another referendum at the same time that Gilles and the Bloc Quebecois held the cards in some sort of coalition government.

Scary.


Monday Update: From the National Post.

Chantal Hébert: Liberals face a walloping in Quebec.

Just a teaser: "Short of a game-changer between now and May 2, Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals will take a beating in Quebec next month."  Read the rest here.


While I hope what Chantal wrote accurately reflects the situation in Quebec, I am not counting on it and I am going to work my butt off on the local level to get that majority without having to rely on Quebec. That would be sweet wouldn't it.  Also a majority gov't would be much more effective if they had to deal with a PQ gov't at some point in the future, which is something a Bloc backed coalition could never hope to achieve.


We can get it done but it will not be easy as the last couple of weeks are going to be crucial with the desperation of the left/opposition only intensifying as May 2nd approaches. All hands on deck!

Neither rain nor snow......

Out on the campaign trail last evening in Edmonton Millwoods Beaumont with incumbent Mike Lake and a few volunteers as they door knocked their way through a nasty spring snow storm. Although the heavy wet snow made for some tough going at times, it was clear at the doors that the effort was appreciated.

If you live in the Edmonton Millwoods Beaumont area and have even a couple of hours of free time to volunteer give the campaign office a call @ 780-466-0195, and if you live elsewhere please give your local CPC candidates campaign office a call. Election campaigns are won locally and on the ground. Any help that you can offer will be greatly appreciated.

Ignatieff: UN if necessary, but not necessarily the UN. Giving away our sovereignty.

For Michael Ignatieff, for today at least, it is the UN if necessary, but not necessarily the UN. 

Does Michael Ignatieff want to give away our sovereignty by letting the UN dictate where and when Canada's armed forces may be used? 

As usual it is hard to tell because one day Ignatifeff says one thing and the next day it is something else entirely.

Yesterday Michael Ignatieff said the following in the French language debate: “The Canadian army must never be used outside the country without the authorization of the UN,”  but today he seems to be backpedaling somewhat.

He wants us to trust him to be our PM, but honestly how can we when his positions seem to shift around depending on what day it is. Take the following quote as an example: “Well, the UN screwed up in Rwanda, it screwed up in Bosnia — it screws up most of the time,” Ignatieff is quoted as saying in a Maclean’s magazine article in June, 2003. “The United Nations is a messy, wasteful, log-rolling organization.” (must have been a Tuesday) But we are now to forget that he ever spoke those words and let that same messy, wasteful, log rolling organization that screws up most of the time, decide when and where our armed forces be used.


Does anyone really know what this guy honestly believes or where he stands?

Michael Ignatieff: "Politics is theatre. It is part of the job to pretend to have emotions that you do not actually feel."

Collapse in Quebec: Former co-chair of the Quebec wing of Liberal Party of Canada joins the CPC.

Denise Verreault, campaign co-chair for the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada has abandoned the Liberals and announced that she is supporting PM Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada. (link, link translated,)

From the Globe and Mail Her decision to support the Conservatives sent a clear message to voters in the region that when it comes to jobs and investments the Conservatives still carry a great deal more weight than Mr. Duceppe’s promise to defend their interests. And that message alone may be enough for the Conservatives to hold-on to the seats they have in Quebec to help them in their quest for a majority government.

A collapse of what is left of Liberal support in Quebec, or just Quebec realizing that it is better on the inside of government than the outside? Either way, in Quebec I am starting to see shades of 1984 and Mulroney.

Impartial jury, my ass. The real contempt.

If you were charged with an offence and at your trial you noticed that your accuser was the foreman on your jury, which was made up entirely of his relatives and friends, do you believe that you would get a fair trial and that justice would honestly be served in your case?

That could never happen in Canada you say?

Well it did happen, and it happened in the House of Commons. The only real difference is that in the H of C that jury foreman, the same guy who made the accusations in the first place, had the power to whip the jury on the verdict vote?

I am of course writing about the contempt of Parliament charges which brought down the Government. The opposition made the contempt accusations, they formed the jury, and that jury was, in the most unjust and undemocratically way possible, WHIPPED into voting on what was essentially the verdict. Not exactly as fair and as 'democratic' as the opposition is spinning it as the entire process was rigged from the start entire to get a result they wanted. 

Parliament didn't speak; Ignatieff, Layton and Duceppe were the ones doing the talking as they took away the choice of elected representatives to speak for themselves and their constituents on a something that should always be above petty politics. Just having them think otherwise is more than enough reason not to vote for any of them or their parties, and reason why we need to work for a strong conservative majority.

Time to stop the games. Parliament is to there serve Canadians, and not political parties and the opportunists that run them.

Liberals postpone June national party convention

The Liberal Party of Canada, who are trying to convince you that they can form a government, have decided to postpone their June 2011 party convention presumably because it is too hard for them to run an election campaign and a convention at the same time.

Yet the Conservative Party of Canada seem to have no problems with running a government, an election campaign and planning a June 2011 convention at the same time.

Telling isn't it.

Update: Also telling? Steve Janke gives his take on why this might be happening. Here.



Let the speculation begin as to why the Liberals are postponing what may very well be a Liberal leadership convention?

Rumours that Justin Trudeau was too busy in June have yet to be confirmed.  =)





Gritchick ( a big h/t for convention story) has informed me that the NDP are holding their national convention in June as well. Ouch, Liberals.

If the CPC comes up 1 or 2 seats short of a majority...

Will you be able to say to yourself that you did all that you could have done to help win those seats?

A majority is possible and within reach, but it is going to take every conservative in the country to help make it so. Get out and get active in any way that you can. It all matters.

A rarity in Canada: Interview with PM Harper on the issues, and not the ratings grabbing gotcha.

Watch the interview of PM Harper on some of the issues that matter to Canadians that was conducted by Jeff Allan for 570 News in southern Ontario earlier today.




Refreshing wasn't it.

1 year ago the Liberals supported an IPOD tax, today they don't, tomorrow who really knows.

The Liberals position on an IPOD tax is a bit shaky to say the least. They currently claim that they do not support one but...

On April 14, 2010 a vote was held in the House of Commons:

Pursuant to Standing Order 66(2), the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mrs. Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert), seconded by Mr. Pomerleau (Drummond), — That the First Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, presented on Wednesday, March 17, 2010, be concurred in.

 The vote carried: YEAS: 156, NAYS: 137

And what exactly was the "First Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage" that they were voting on?


That the Committee recommends that the government amend Part VIII of the Copyright Act so that the definition of “audio recording medium” extends to devices with internal memory, so that the levy on copying music will apply to digital music recorders as well, thereby entitling music creators to some compensation for the copies made of their work.

It was an IPOD tax, and it was only one year ago.

(A special note to Evan Solomon from CBC's Power and Politics where this issue came up yesterday. Yes, Martha Hall Findlay did vote for it, as did her leader Michael Ignatieff and the entire Liberal caucus) (Related: Having Ignatieff attend a vote in itself is quite a feat)


Present day and almost a full year after that vote the Liberals are now claiming the opposite and that they do not support an IPOD tax. I guess that is to be expected considering their complete reversal on long standing party support for corporate tax cuts , immigration reform (that one cost them an MP), HST, asbestos, Afghanistan and the list goes on (including the coalition but jury is still out on this one) but with such a long history of such flip flops how do we know what their position, on anything, will be tomorrow? How can we trust them not to change their minds yet again?

We can't.

BTW From the Liberal Platform:  “Liberals have worked to pass effective copyright legislation, including a private copying compensation fund instead of any new tax on consumers”.


A 'private copying compensation fund'?  And how exactly is that going to be funded my flip flopping Liberal friends? They may not call it an IPOD tax but I somehow doubt that we are going to get away without it costing us more in one way or another.