Canada was shut out by the Swiss, by the Fins and by the Russians in 2006. Scoring was a problem, the powerplay was problem and a lack of speed on the blueline was a problem.
Things have not changed that much up front. The pool of forwards Canada has to draw on is not that much better than in 2006. So it was vital that hockey toss aside its fascination with "role players" with "chemistry" with "grit" and "leadership". 2006 team had all those things in spades and it sucked. Kris Drapper selection in 2006 represents everything that is wrong with Hockey Canada. Kris Draper was a good role player. He was gritty, he provided leadership and it was absurd that he made the team and Crosby, and E. Staal did not.
Yzerman should know better than to repeat Gretzky's idiocy. After all, he was left off the 1991 Canada Cup team for no good reason. Mike Keenen said that Yzerman was "too young", but he was 25! and whatever his age he scored 51 goals and could skate like the wind. Besides, Keenen is the guy that still thinks that Greg Gilbert and Stephene Matteau for Tony Amonte was great trade for the Rangers.
Canada might still win in 2010, but as in 2002 it will be despite management and not because of it. In 2002 Gretzky left Bertuzzi Thornton off the team and despite the gold Canada was far from flawless.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Team Canada: are you kidding me
Morrow 25 points, Seabrook 16 points and Bergeron 29 points make the team and Mike Green 38 points, St. Louis 43 points, J. Carter 46 goals last year, Stamkos 37 points, LeCaviler do not. Hockey Canada can no longer afford to hand the reins over to ex superstars without them first have proved themselves at the GM level. Crosby might have the makings of a great GM. I do not know. However, good numbers do not mean that he should be the GM in 2024, say.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Mike Green Should Make the Team
If Green is left off the team, Yzerman will prove himself to be as bad as Gretzky. Green has 38 points, was nominated for Norris last year, and is plus 15. People say his Defense is lacking, put he is every bit as good in his own end as Dan Boyle and is better offensively. Oh yeah and Niedermayer is -13.
The pundits are biased towards older players -- particularly the grind it out type. Unfortunately, in the past so was management. This has to change if Canada is avoid another 2006 debacle. Ryan Smyth, for example, does not deserve to be on the team. It is that simple. When you compare his skill level to emerging players such as Stamkos, and Toews and his stats over the last few years to more established players such E. Staal and Lecavailer you see clearly that he does not measure up. Team Canada managment can not afford to be nostalgic.
The pundits are biased towards older players -- particularly the grind it out type. Unfortunately, in the past so was management. This has to change if Canada is avoid another 2006 debacle. Ryan Smyth, for example, does not deserve to be on the team. It is that simple. When you compare his skill level to emerging players such as Stamkos, and Toews and his stats over the last few years to more established players such E. Staal and Lecavailer you see clearly that he does not measure up. Team Canada managment can not afford to be nostalgic.
Team Canada: This who should make the cut
G: Fleury, Brodeur, Luongo
D: Boyle, Weber, Pronger, Niedermayer, Keith, Bouwmeester, Green
F: Getzlaf, E. Staal, Nash, Thorton, Heatley, Crosby, Lecavalier, St. Louis, Ignalia, Carter, M Richards, Marleau, Perry
D: Boyle, Weber, Pronger, Niedermayer, Keith, Bouwmeester, Green
F: Getzlaf, E. Staal, Nash, Thorton, Heatley, Crosby, Lecavalier, St. Louis, Ignalia, Carter, M Richards, Marleau, Perry
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Canada's Afghan boondoggle
So what does the 18 billion get us.
1) Over 2 thirds of Afghans in Kandahar province want us gone.
2) Whether it be by Al Qaeda (see there warnings related to the Afghan mission) or by homegrown terrorists (see the Toronto 18), Canada is more likely to be attacked.
3) The misssion poises a threat to national unity. Indeed, a terrorist attack, inspired by Canada 's presence in Afghanistan, might revitalize the Quebec’s separatist movement, especially if Quebec is the victim. Currently the Afghan mission is opposed by 70% of Quebecers. If Quebecers die as a result of us being there, the separatists will use it as a reason why Quebecers need their own country with its own foreign policy.
4) An attack would set back race relations in Canada and hamper our ability to sustain the high levels of immigration needed to combat an aging population.
1) Over 2 thirds of Afghans in Kandahar province want us gone.
2) Whether it be by Al Qaeda (see there warnings related to the Afghan mission) or by homegrown terrorists (see the Toronto 18), Canada is more likely to be attacked.
3) The misssion poises a threat to national unity. Indeed, a terrorist attack, inspired by Canada 's presence in Afghanistan, might revitalize the Quebec’s separatist movement, especially if Quebec is the victim. Currently the Afghan mission is opposed by 70% of Quebecers. If Quebecers die as a result of us being there, the separatists will use it as a reason why Quebecers need their own country with its own foreign policy.
4) An attack would set back race relations in Canada and hamper our ability to sustain the high levels of immigration needed to combat an aging population.
Olympic Hockey Roster
Here is rough break down of who I would have as the final 25 back in the summer.
G: Mason, Brodeur, Luongo
D: Burns, Weber, Pronger, Niedermayer, Keith, Bouwmeester, Phaneuff, Green
F: Getzlaf (C), E. Staal (W), Nash (W), Thorton (C), Heatley (W), Crosby (C), Lecavalier (C), St. Louis (W), Doan (W), Ignalia (W) Carter (C), Richards (C) Marleau (W) Toews (W)
Move Carter and E. Staal to the wings. Staal moved to the rightwing to play with Getzlaf and Nash in the world Championships.
Since then, Burns and Mason have played themselves off the team and Fleury and Boyle have played themselves on. Perry and Stamkos deserve to be ahead of Doan and Toews and Phaneuff, Staal, Lecavalier, have not set the world on fire and B Richards has been hot.
This is who I would go with now.
G: Fleury, Brodeur, Luongo
D: Boyle, Weber, Pronger, Niedermayer, Keith, Bouwmeester, Phaneuff, Green
F: Getzlaf (C), E. Staal (W), Nash (W), Thorton (C), Heatley (W), Crosby (C), Lecavalier (C), St. Louis (W), Stamkos (W), Ignalia (W) Carter (W), M Richards (C) Marleau (W) Perry (W)
G: Mason, Brodeur, Luongo
D: Burns, Weber, Pronger, Niedermayer, Keith, Bouwmeester, Phaneuff, Green
F: Getzlaf (C), E. Staal (W), Nash (W), Thorton (C), Heatley (W), Crosby (C), Lecavalier (C), St. Louis (W), Doan (W), Ignalia (W) Carter (C), Richards (C) Marleau (W) Toews (W)
Move Carter and E. Staal to the wings. Staal moved to the rightwing to play with Getzlaf and Nash in the world Championships.
Since then, Burns and Mason have played themselves off the team and Fleury and Boyle have played themselves on. Perry and Stamkos deserve to be ahead of Doan and Toews and Phaneuff, Staal, Lecavalier, have not set the world on fire and B Richards has been hot.
This is who I would go with now.
G: Fleury, Brodeur, Luongo
D: Boyle, Weber, Pronger, Niedermayer, Keith, Bouwmeester, Phaneuff, Green
F: Getzlaf (C), E. Staal (W), Nash (W), Thorton (C), Heatley (W), Crosby (C), Lecavalier (C), St. Louis (W), Stamkos (W), Ignalia (W) Carter (W), M Richards (C) Marleau (W) Perry (W)
Immigration: Canada needs to Get it Right
An aging population and not climate change is the biggest threat we face as a nation. In fact it is not even close.
The average Canadian in 2004 was 39.7; that makes Canada one of the oldest nations on earth. However bad things are now things promise to get a lot worse. The percentage of Canadians over 65 is set to go from 14.7 now to 27.6 in 2050. If the situation was ever allowed to get this bad, the economy would at best be stagnet, the federal government would surely be in deficit, and virtually every public entitlement program would be under enormous pressure or would have already collapsed. Most notably our health care system would be in serious trouble.
The problem is this. People in their 60s cost the health care system more than twice as much on a per capita basis than any of the younger demographics. People in their 70s cost the health care system more twice that as people in their 60s on per capita basis. People in their 80s cost the system twice as much per capita basis and on it goes. In US, since 1975 half of every health care dollar spent has been spent on the last year of life. It is not without reason that some commentors recast the health care crisis in the US in Canada is really being a demographic one.
The notion that this problem can be addressed by encouraging Canadians to have more kids is unrealistic. There is not one Western nation with a fertility rate above the replacement rate yet alone one with a fertility rate high enough to withstand the aforementioned increase in the number of seniors as percentage of the total population.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:CAN&q=fertility+rate+canada
To think that Canada has chance of nearly doubling its current fertility rate of 1.6 -- and that is what it would take -- is pie in the sky nonsense. Moreover, far from making things better a massive baby boom would only increase an already mushrooming dependency rate for a good number of years. There is something perverse about wanting Canada to become a country of the very old and very young supported by taxes on a rapidly shrinking working population.
Canada has no option but to continue with a high rate of immigration.
Immigration is allowing us to make some headway. 2001 study found that based on 1996 census if Canada did not allow any immigrants, then the number of seniors as percentage of the population in 2050 would be 29. 8. If on the other hand Canada let in 225,000 annually, then that number would drop to 25.4. Finally, if Canada let in 450,000 annually that number would drop further still to 22.9. http://sociology.uwo.ca/popstudies/dp/dp03-03.pdf Of course, if 450,000 annually is good, somewhere between 500,000 and million is even better. Finally, latter number and more of an emphasis on youth would be best of all.
That is the good news. The bad news is that Canada's immigration system needs to be reformed.
Take family reunification. There is no reason why an immigrant should be able to bring in anyone other than his spouse and dependents. After all, if the main point of a high rate of immigration is to lessen the effects of an aging population, what sense does it make to allow immigrants to sponsor their parents and grandparents?
Eliminting the ability of immigrants to sponsor their parents and grandparents is obvious place to start, but there are other less obvious reforms that need to be taken. One of the biggest concerns is that the ratio of skilled principle applicants as percentage of the over number of immigrants to Canada is way too small. Currently less than one in 5 immigrants is a skilled principle applicant. And however much I am loath to admit it, the Mark Steyn's of the world are right about one thing. Allowing someone to immigrant to Canada has a huge potential cost associated with it. This espeically so with regard to any other category of immigrant other the skilled principle applicants. After all, it is only skilled principle applicants that earning anywhere close to what their Canadian peers are earning and skilled principle applicants are the only category of immigrants that are working in numbers that even approach the Canadian average.
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/051013/d051013b.htm
If you tease out the numbers, 55% of non principal skilled applicants in the 25 to 44 age group are working after 2 years! Canada needs to do a better job of ensuring that immigrants are able to succeed and while some bleeding hearts will no doubt claim that a complete turn around is possible, an approach that is far more likely to bare fruit is eliminating or greatly limitiing those categories of immigrants that are not likely to succeed economically. To say that Canada needs immigrants is only half right. We need young well educated immigrants who are proficient in English. Indeed, we need a lot more than what we are allowing in now. We do not, however, need their parents and grandparents. We also do not need refugees. Most of all what Canada does not need is cheap unskilled guest workers.
Given Jason Kenney's stated desire to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and Mark Steyn's rantings about second generation Islamic exterminism in Europe you would think that Kenney and Steyn would reel back before the subject of guest workers like vampires before garlic. Instead, Steyn's musings reduce to an infintile and bigoted ethnic essentialism and Kenney seems hell bent on allowing more guest works than Germany, Netherlands and Austria did in the 1960s and 1970s combined.
Indeed, whereas the typical guest worker was once an American transferred to a branch office in Canada, the fastest growing category of guest worker is now the unskilled type with poor language skills. Under the Conservatives, Canada has allowed in some two hunderd thousand plus unskilled workers a year. In other words, the average Canadian tax payer now pays through the noise to have cheap labour sent in from other countries for the sole purpose of cutting his wages. Forget Conservative talk about such provincial programs bringing in much needed skilled workers, this was the kind of positions Alberta was hoping to fill through its guest worker programs this summer: Front desk clerk, short order cook, baker, maid, assembly line worker, server, buser, bellhop, valet, and cafeteria worker, laundry attendant, pet groomer, general labourer, and hair dresser. All that is required of such would be immigrants is that they score 4 or 24 on the language assessment. In other words, they can still be functionally illiterate and still get it in.
Pace Mark Steyn, Integrating immigrants is really quite simple. If you bring in young well educated immigrants that are fluent in English, they will integrate. It will not matter a lick what their background or skin colour is. On the other hand, if you bring in non English speaking uneducated immigrants to clean toilets and serve donuts at Tim Hortons, you have recipe for what happened in Europe, viz, poor race relations, xenophobia and illegal immigration. It is really that clear cut and Kenney should know this. Every expert on immigration does.
It takes a great deal of chutzpah to Kenney to talk about wanting to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and then go about encouraging the very thing that led to the creation of these communities in Europe, viz., importing gobs of unskilled guest labour.
In addition to letting in more skilled immigrants and less of everyone else, Canada needs to refine what it means to be skilled applicant.
The point system is a mess. It is weighted, accidently I am sure, in such a way as to favour older applicants over younger ones. A premium is placed on experience, being married is advantageous and age is not penalized much at all. For example, a 49 year old is given the same number of points for age as a 21 year old! Not only is all this is completely at odds with the stated aim of using immigration to mediate some of the stresses of having a low birth rate, a shrinking supply of labour and a graying population, the very kind of skilled worker most likely to fail, viz., older workers is the one most likely to qualify.
Indeed, while everyone agrees that Canada needs to be a better job of recognizing foreign credentials, what has gotten less attention is just how hard it is establish oneself in a particular field without any contacts in that field and work contacts are what many new immigrants lack. As various studies have shown, for immigrants outside of the Western world, work experience counts for virtually nothing as at all. For this reason alone, Canada needs to redo its point system such that it looks to attract younger skilled workers who are not at such a disadvantage contact wise as their peers.
Above all else though Canada need put more of an emphasis on language proficiency. After all, although Jason Kenney may let in hundreds of thousands of unskilled guest workers with little or no English, he is right to say that language proficiency is best predictor of economic success.
It should be noted that by language proficiency I mean ones ability to converse in either French or English. Currently, moderate proficiency across the board in both English and French is amounts to the same thing high proficiency in one! This is akin to thinking an average switch hitter is not the equal to all star who bats only right handed.
All that being said, in order to get at appreciation for some of the short comings of the current points system consider this. Under the current formula, a single 26 year old who has just completed a PHD in Canada, and who speaks perfect English, but who lacks relevant work experience and is not proficient in French would likely not qualify. Indeed, assuming no family ties and no relevant work experience, they would score 56 out of 100. In other words, if they were not able to quickly secure a job in one of the relevant fields, they would be heading back to their country of origin in short order. Even, if that same applicant spoke perfect French and English they would still not qualify. They would score 64 out of 100.
By contrast a 49 year old who has never set foot in the country and speaks no French but has a BA, 3 years experience, moderate English skills a spouse with a 1 year diploma, and a cousin in distant Canadian city would score 67! This is absurd.
The average Canadian in 2004 was 39.7; that makes Canada one of the oldest nations on earth. However bad things are now things promise to get a lot worse. The percentage of Canadians over 65 is set to go from 14.7 now to 27.6 in 2050. If the situation was ever allowed to get this bad, the economy would at best be stagnet, the federal government would surely be in deficit, and virtually every public entitlement program would be under enormous pressure or would have already collapsed. Most notably our health care system would be in serious trouble.
The problem is this. People in their 60s cost the health care system more than twice as much on a per capita basis than any of the younger demographics. People in their 70s cost the health care system more twice that as people in their 60s on per capita basis. People in their 80s cost the system twice as much per capita basis and on it goes. In US, since 1975 half of every health care dollar spent has been spent on the last year of life. It is not without reason that some commentors recast the health care crisis in the US in Canada is really being a demographic one.
The notion that this problem can be addressed by encouraging Canadians to have more kids is unrealistic. There is not one Western nation with a fertility rate above the replacement rate yet alone one with a fertility rate high enough to withstand the aforementioned increase in the number of seniors as percentage of the total population.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:CAN&q=fertility+rate+canada
To think that Canada has chance of nearly doubling its current fertility rate of 1.6 -- and that is what it would take -- is pie in the sky nonsense. Moreover, far from making things better a massive baby boom would only increase an already mushrooming dependency rate for a good number of years. There is something perverse about wanting Canada to become a country of the very old and very young supported by taxes on a rapidly shrinking working population.
Canada has no option but to continue with a high rate of immigration.
Immigration is allowing us to make some headway. 2001 study found that based on 1996 census if Canada did not allow any immigrants, then the number of seniors as percentage of the population in 2050 would be 29. 8. If on the other hand Canada let in 225,000 annually, then that number would drop to 25.4. Finally, if Canada let in 450,000 annually that number would drop further still to 22.9. http://sociology.uwo.ca/popstudies/dp/dp03-03.pdf Of course, if 450,000 annually is good, somewhere between 500,000 and million is even better. Finally, latter number and more of an emphasis on youth would be best of all.
That is the good news. The bad news is that Canada's immigration system needs to be reformed.
Take family reunification. There is no reason why an immigrant should be able to bring in anyone other than his spouse and dependents. After all, if the main point of a high rate of immigration is to lessen the effects of an aging population, what sense does it make to allow immigrants to sponsor their parents and grandparents?
Eliminting the ability of immigrants to sponsor their parents and grandparents is obvious place to start, but there are other less obvious reforms that need to be taken. One of the biggest concerns is that the ratio of skilled principle applicants as percentage of the over number of immigrants to Canada is way too small. Currently less than one in 5 immigrants is a skilled principle applicant. And however much I am loath to admit it, the Mark Steyn's of the world are right about one thing. Allowing someone to immigrant to Canada has a huge potential cost associated with it. This espeically so with regard to any other category of immigrant other the skilled principle applicants. After all, it is only skilled principle applicants that earning anywhere close to what their Canadian peers are earning and skilled principle applicants are the only category of immigrants that are working in numbers that even approach the Canadian average.
"At 26 weeks after their arrival, 50% of all immigrants aged 25 to 44 were employed. This was 30 percentage points below the employment rate of about 80% among all individuals aged 25 to 44 in the Canadian population. ... At 52 weeks after arrival, the employment rate among prime working-age immigrants was 58%. This narrowed the gap to 23 percentage points. At 104 weeks, or two years after arrival, the employment rate among prime working-age immigrants was 63%, 18 percentage points below the national rate of 81%. ... Immigrants admitted as principal applicants in the skilled worker category had an even better record for employment. At 26 weeks after arrival, the gap in the employment rate between them and the Canadian population was 20 percentage points. By 52 weeks, this had narrowed to 12 points, and by two years, it was down to 8 points."
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/051013/d051013b.htm
If you tease out the numbers, 55% of non principal skilled applicants in the 25 to 44 age group are working after 2 years! Canada needs to do a better job of ensuring that immigrants are able to succeed and while some bleeding hearts will no doubt claim that a complete turn around is possible, an approach that is far more likely to bare fruit is eliminating or greatly limitiing those categories of immigrants that are not likely to succeed economically. To say that Canada needs immigrants is only half right. We need young well educated immigrants who are proficient in English. Indeed, we need a lot more than what we are allowing in now. We do not, however, need their parents and grandparents. We also do not need refugees. Most of all what Canada does not need is cheap unskilled guest workers.
Given Jason Kenney's stated desire to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and Mark Steyn's rantings about second generation Islamic exterminism in Europe you would think that Kenney and Steyn would reel back before the subject of guest workers like vampires before garlic. Instead, Steyn's musings reduce to an infintile and bigoted ethnic essentialism and Kenney seems hell bent on allowing more guest works than Germany, Netherlands and Austria did in the 1960s and 1970s combined.
Indeed, whereas the typical guest worker was once an American transferred to a branch office in Canada, the fastest growing category of guest worker is now the unskilled type with poor language skills. Under the Conservatives, Canada has allowed in some two hunderd thousand plus unskilled workers a year. In other words, the average Canadian tax payer now pays through the noise to have cheap labour sent in from other countries for the sole purpose of cutting his wages. Forget Conservative talk about such provincial programs bringing in much needed skilled workers, this was the kind of positions Alberta was hoping to fill through its guest worker programs this summer: Front desk clerk, short order cook, baker, maid, assembly line worker, server, buser, bellhop, valet, and cafeteria worker, laundry attendant, pet groomer, general labourer, and hair dresser. All that is required of such would be immigrants is that they score 4 or 24 on the language assessment. In other words, they can still be functionally illiterate and still get it in.
Pace Mark Steyn, Integrating immigrants is really quite simple. If you bring in young well educated immigrants that are fluent in English, they will integrate. It will not matter a lick what their background or skin colour is. On the other hand, if you bring in non English speaking uneducated immigrants to clean toilets and serve donuts at Tim Hortons, you have recipe for what happened in Europe, viz, poor race relations, xenophobia and illegal immigration. It is really that clear cut and Kenney should know this. Every expert on immigration does.
It takes a great deal of chutzpah to Kenney to talk about wanting to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and then go about encouraging the very thing that led to the creation of these communities in Europe, viz., importing gobs of unskilled guest labour.
In addition to letting in more skilled immigrants and less of everyone else, Canada needs to refine what it means to be skilled applicant.
The point system is a mess. It is weighted, accidently I am sure, in such a way as to favour older applicants over younger ones. A premium is placed on experience, being married is advantageous and age is not penalized much at all. For example, a 49 year old is given the same number of points for age as a 21 year old! Not only is all this is completely at odds with the stated aim of using immigration to mediate some of the stresses of having a low birth rate, a shrinking supply of labour and a graying population, the very kind of skilled worker most likely to fail, viz., older workers is the one most likely to qualify.
Indeed, while everyone agrees that Canada needs to be a better job of recognizing foreign credentials, what has gotten less attention is just how hard it is establish oneself in a particular field without any contacts in that field and work contacts are what many new immigrants lack. As various studies have shown, for immigrants outside of the Western world, work experience counts for virtually nothing as at all. For this reason alone, Canada needs to redo its point system such that it looks to attract younger skilled workers who are not at such a disadvantage contact wise as their peers.
Above all else though Canada need put more of an emphasis on language proficiency. After all, although Jason Kenney may let in hundreds of thousands of unskilled guest workers with little or no English, he is right to say that language proficiency is best predictor of economic success.
It should be noted that by language proficiency I mean ones ability to converse in either French or English. Currently, moderate proficiency across the board in both English and French is amounts to the same thing high proficiency in one! This is akin to thinking an average switch hitter is not the equal to all star who bats only right handed.
All that being said, in order to get at appreciation for some of the short comings of the current points system consider this. Under the current formula, a single 26 year old who has just completed a PHD in Canada, and who speaks perfect English, but who lacks relevant work experience and is not proficient in French would likely not qualify. Indeed, assuming no family ties and no relevant work experience, they would score 56 out of 100. In other words, if they were not able to quickly secure a job in one of the relevant fields, they would be heading back to their country of origin in short order. Even, if that same applicant spoke perfect French and English they would still not qualify. They would score 64 out of 100.
By contrast a 49 year old who has never set foot in the country and speaks no French but has a BA, 3 years experience, moderate English skills a spouse with a 1 year diploma, and a cousin in distant Canadian city would score 67! This is absurd.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Gift Cards: Like Cash, but less useful
Why do people buy gift cards? There is something that does the very same thing and it is redemable everywhere. It is called CASH. I will only ever buy a gift card if the amount on the gift card is greater than the amount it costs to buy that gift card. But given the number of suckers out there, I am going to be waiting a very long time.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Janine Krieber
This is what Janine Krieber got right
1) Igantieff has been an unmediated disaster.
2) The rot goes well beyond Ignatieff.
3) Paul Martin was a cancer.
Now this is what she got wrong.
1) Love is blind. It is obvious to all but the two of them that Stephen Dion does not have the ability to rebuild the party. His English is not good enough. He never had the support of the caucus or even the party base. He is not engaging speaker, he is not charismatic and he comes off as a wimp. Moreover, the notion that the green shift would win the election for the Liberals was pie in sky nonsense. The Liberals actually did a nice job boiling down what the tax shift was. "Less on what you earn more on what you burn." However, the Liberals were never going to be able to explain to the public just what is "burnt" and as a result how such a shift would effect the cost of any number of goods and services. The Conservatives gave them an answer. It would be a "tax on everything". Naturally some Canadians were convinced that this was simply a tax increase in disguise. But the kicker was this. I do not care what Canadians told polling companies about climate change. No one I mean no is ever going to be excited over a tax shift. Making the central plank of his platform something that did not offer a single tangible benefit Canadians just went to show how hopeless Dion was as a politician and why he needed to be ushered out the door as soon as possible.
2) Listening to some Liberals you would think that the gun registry, NEP and SSM lost the Liberals Western Canada. Such suggestions are of course ridiculous. West of Winnipeg the Liberals were only ever strong in BC and the reason they dropped off the map in BC after the 1974 election was because of Trudeau's pandering to Quebec. Of course, pandering to Quebec was the same reason why "the West" rejected the PC party in 1993. For Janine Krieber, to suggest that the coalition with the Bloc was a good idea just goes to show how removed she is from understanding political realities in Western Canada.
3) The rot did not begin with Martin taking over. Under Martin and Chrétien the Liberals abandoned universality, the heart of the Liberal brand, and favored instead means tested programs. Means tested social programs do not win elections; the populace is not going to get excited about paying for a service that only a small percentage of the public can use. By turning every social program on offer into a form of welfare, the ability of the Liberals to offer anything other than tax cuts is very limited. Sure enough the Liberals, despite their vacuous rhetoric to contrary, have become virtually indistinguishable from the Conservatives on most issues.
Dion did nothing to reverse the trend. The Green shift only goes to prove that this is true. The same party that had once promised to replace the GST was now planning to reduce income taxes and introduce a regressive tax.
Worse, Dion was the first to take steps to rob the Liberals of their only remaining redeeming feature, viz., a luke warm social liberalism. People should not be confused by Dion's commitment to affirmative action and other forms of degenerate liberalism. Whether it be marijuana, euthanasia or prostitution, Dion did nothing and said next to nothing. What Dion started Ignatieff finished. Under the guise of making the Liberals competitive again in rural Canada,Ignatieff Liberals have made it clear that the Liberal party will never again to say or doing anything that might anger social conservatives.
1) Igantieff has been an unmediated disaster.
2) The rot goes well beyond Ignatieff.
3) Paul Martin was a cancer.
Now this is what she got wrong.
1) Love is blind. It is obvious to all but the two of them that Stephen Dion does not have the ability to rebuild the party. His English is not good enough. He never had the support of the caucus or even the party base. He is not engaging speaker, he is not charismatic and he comes off as a wimp. Moreover, the notion that the green shift would win the election for the Liberals was pie in sky nonsense. The Liberals actually did a nice job boiling down what the tax shift was. "Less on what you earn more on what you burn." However, the Liberals were never going to be able to explain to the public just what is "burnt" and as a result how such a shift would effect the cost of any number of goods and services. The Conservatives gave them an answer. It would be a "tax on everything". Naturally some Canadians were convinced that this was simply a tax increase in disguise. But the kicker was this. I do not care what Canadians told polling companies about climate change. No one I mean no is ever going to be excited over a tax shift. Making the central plank of his platform something that did not offer a single tangible benefit Canadians just went to show how hopeless Dion was as a politician and why he needed to be ushered out the door as soon as possible.
2) Listening to some Liberals you would think that the gun registry, NEP and SSM lost the Liberals Western Canada. Such suggestions are of course ridiculous. West of Winnipeg the Liberals were only ever strong in BC and the reason they dropped off the map in BC after the 1974 election was because of Trudeau's pandering to Quebec. Of course, pandering to Quebec was the same reason why "the West" rejected the PC party in 1993. For Janine Krieber, to suggest that the coalition with the Bloc was a good idea just goes to show how removed she is from understanding political realities in Western Canada.
3) The rot did not begin with Martin taking over. Under Martin and Chrétien the Liberals abandoned universality, the heart of the Liberal brand, and favored instead means tested programs. Means tested social programs do not win elections; the populace is not going to get excited about paying for a service that only a small percentage of the public can use. By turning every social program on offer into a form of welfare, the ability of the Liberals to offer anything other than tax cuts is very limited. Sure enough the Liberals, despite their vacuous rhetoric to contrary, have become virtually indistinguishable from the Conservatives on most issues.
Dion did nothing to reverse the trend. The Green shift only goes to prove that this is true. The same party that had once promised to replace the GST was now planning to reduce income taxes and introduce a regressive tax.
Worse, Dion was the first to take steps to rob the Liberals of their only remaining redeeming feature, viz., a luke warm social liberalism. People should not be confused by Dion's commitment to affirmative action and other forms of degenerate liberalism. Whether it be marijuana, euthanasia or prostitution, Dion did nothing and said next to nothing. What Dion started Ignatieff finished. Under the guise of making the Liberals competitive again in rural Canada,Ignatieff Liberals have made it clear that the Liberal party will never again to say or doing anything that might anger social conservatives.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Conservatives enabling Criminals to Keep their Guns
Gun nuts love to drone on about how law abiding gun owners are being targeted by registry. Leaving aside the fact that given that it is a crime not to register a gun, only gun owners that register their guns are law abiding. Of course the registry targets --- a odd choice of words given the subject matter really--- , law abiding gun owners. If you take any large group of people, and the number of law abiding gun owners is large, you can predict with fairly good accuracy that a certain number will develop heart disease, a certain number will get cancer, and certain numbers will be convicted of a crime. By not having Canadians register long guns, the Conservatives are enabling criminals to have guns. After all, the registry, and remember we are talking about former law abiding gun owners who dutifully registered all their guns, gives the authorities enough ammunition to ensure these criminals surrender their registered guns.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The Gun Registry: Some thoughts
1)The cost of registry is about a billion dollars. The 2 billion dollar figure bantered around by the Conservatives is a lie. Whatever the cost though, saying these cost overruns justify disbanding the registry now is akin to saying that if a bridge goes over budget than it should be blown up upon completion. By the way, it costs around 3 million a year to register long guns and if the Conservatives had of continued to collect monies for these guns, then there would be no cost to tax paper whatsoever.
2) People still get murdered by long guns in this country. Indeed, 88% of women killed with gun were killed with a shotgun or rifle.
3) The sharp distinction between "law abiding" firearm owners and criminals is a false distinction. From 2005 to Sep 2009 there have been 9,340 firearm licences have been revoked. Some developed a mental illness. Others committed crimes of various sorts. In other words, over time a sizable number of "law abiding" firearm owners become statistically much more likely to poise a danger to others, particularly their spouses. Little wonder than that while the vast majority of gun owners want the registry gone, 77% of those living with a gun owner want it kept. As another blogger, Luke, identified the crux of the matter. "If person had their firearm licence revoked and their firearms are not registered how would the authorities ensure proper disposal of the firearms?"
4) There is also the issue of suicide to consider. For every homicide in Canada there are 6 or more suicides. The likelihood that one will commit suicide goes up significantly if there is a firearm in the home.
5) All the evidence is consistent with the gun registry having worked. To wit:
The suicide rate in Canada peaked at 15.2 in 1978, dipped below 12 for the first time in 32 years in 2000 and reached a post 1970 low of 11.3 in 2004.
The average suicide rate per year between 1970 and 1976 was 13.35, between 1977 and 1983 it was 14.5, between 1984 and 1990 it was 13.1, between 1991 and 1997 it was 13 and between 1998 to 2004 it was 12.
The number of suicides by firearm in Canada dropped from a high of 1287 in 1978 to a low of 568 in 2004. There was an average of 1033 fire arm suicides per year between 1970 and 1976, 1197 between 1977 and 1983, 1084 between 1984 and 1990, 970 between 1991 and 1997 and 682 between 1998 and 2004.
The number of accidental shooting deaths in Canada stood at 143 in 1971 and has generally declined since then; a low of 20 was reached in 2000. There was an average of 117 accidental shooting deaths per year between 1970 and 1976, 70 between 1977 and 1983, 62.3 between 1984 and 1990, 50.1 between 1991 and 1997 and 28.1 between 1998 and 2004.
The rate of homicide in Canada peaked in 1975 at 3.03 per 100,000 and has dropped since then, reaching lower peaks in 1985 (2.72 per 100,000) and 1991 (2.69 per 100,000) while declining to 1.73 per 100,000 in 2003. The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 2.52, between 1977 and 1983 it was 2.67, between 1984 and 1990 it was 2.41, between 1991 and 1997 it was 2.23 and between 1998 and 2004 it was 1.82.
2) People still get murdered by long guns in this country. Indeed, 88% of women killed with gun were killed with a shotgun or rifle.
3) The sharp distinction between "law abiding" firearm owners and criminals is a false distinction. From 2005 to Sep 2009 there have been 9,340 firearm licences have been revoked. Some developed a mental illness. Others committed crimes of various sorts. In other words, over time a sizable number of "law abiding" firearm owners become statistically much more likely to poise a danger to others, particularly their spouses. Little wonder than that while the vast majority of gun owners want the registry gone, 77% of those living with a gun owner want it kept. As another blogger, Luke, identified the crux of the matter. "If person had their firearm licence revoked and their firearms are not registered how would the authorities ensure proper disposal of the firearms?"
4) There is also the issue of suicide to consider. For every homicide in Canada there are 6 or more suicides. The likelihood that one will commit suicide goes up significantly if there is a firearm in the home.
5) All the evidence is consistent with the gun registry having worked. To wit:
The suicide rate in Canada peaked at 15.2 in 1978, dipped below 12 for the first time in 32 years in 2000 and reached a post 1970 low of 11.3 in 2004.
The average suicide rate per year between 1970 and 1976 was 13.35, between 1977 and 1983 it was 14.5, between 1984 and 1990 it was 13.1, between 1991 and 1997 it was 13 and between 1998 to 2004 it was 12.
The number of suicides by firearm in Canada dropped from a high of 1287 in 1978 to a low of 568 in 2004. There was an average of 1033 fire arm suicides per year between 1970 and 1976, 1197 between 1977 and 1983, 1084 between 1984 and 1990, 970 between 1991 and 1997 and 682 between 1998 and 2004.
The number of accidental shooting deaths in Canada stood at 143 in 1971 and has generally declined since then; a low of 20 was reached in 2000. There was an average of 117 accidental shooting deaths per year between 1970 and 1976, 70 between 1977 and 1983, 62.3 between 1984 and 1990, 50.1 between 1991 and 1997 and 28.1 between 1998 and 2004.
The rate of homicide in Canada peaked in 1975 at 3.03 per 100,000 and has dropped since then, reaching lower peaks in 1985 (2.72 per 100,000) and 1991 (2.69 per 100,000) while declining to 1.73 per 100,000 in 2003. The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 2.52, between 1977 and 1983 it was 2.67, between 1984 and 1990 it was 2.41, between 1991 and 1997 it was 2.23 and between 1998 and 2004 it was 1.82.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Liberal Bloggers Need to Say What they Stand For
Many Liberal bloggers are content to argue the party line, talk inside baseball and daily goings on. This is too bad. The Liberals do not stand for anything. They are no role model. Moreover, the Liberal party needs to be regularly kicked in the balls least it become to comfortable with its own mediocrity. The Liberal bloggers, big and small, need to articulate what concrete programs and changes they want. So let us hear it Calgary Grit, BCer in Toronto, et al.
Here again is my list. Of course, not all of them are terribly realistic, but so what
Things that need to be legalized
1) marijuana,
2) prostitution
3) euthanasia.
Needed Federal Programs
1) Dental care
2) Full day Kindergarten and Playschool
3) Natonal Drug plan
Upgrading of national standards
1) $10 hour National minimum wage indexed to inflation
2) Miniumum 4 weeks vacation a year. This is the European minimum.
3) Massive increase the number of ridings. The hinterlands have way too much electoral clout.
Things that need to be abolished
1) Native Rights If someone was to suggest that land should be reserved for, say, Chinese Canadians and that Chinese Canadians should have rights that other Canadians do not have, you would first ask them to lie down; you would then call 911 and tell the person at the other end of the line that you believe that the person before you had suffered a stroke and that paramedics should come quick. Whether it be billions lost to illegal cigarette sales, or setting up school food programs for kids who live on land that if divided equally would net them tens of millions on the open market, it hard to think of anything quite so daft.
A commitment to native rights and reserves condemns future generations to be born into a communities that are completely economically unviable. Without hope for a better future, these children will be plagued by the same problems that plagued their parents. Lamenting high infant mortality rates, teen pregnancy rates, teen drop out rates, crime rates and rapid substance abuse, means nota if you are setting in motion the very things you lament.
The same goes for racism. People can lament that racism still exists in Canada all they want. However,supporting a policy that defines native in the same manner that Nazis defined Jew and giving one particular group rights that no other groups enjoys, is preventing things from getting better. The bleeders should not kid themselves.
2) The Senate.
3) Family Unification If the main point of a high rate of immigration is to lessen the effects of an aging population, what sense does it make to allow immigrants to sponsor their parents and grandparents? The average immigrant to Canada is only a bit younger than the average Canadian. Now do not get me wrong. Canada needs more immigrants -- alot more. Canada needs to at least triple the number of economic immigrants to Canada each year. However at the same time as it needs to do that, it needs to all but eliminate every other category of immigrant. Also, there needs to be a greater emphasis and youth, and language skills.
4) The ability of employers to bring in unskilled temporary workers. The Canadian tax payer should not be paying to have temporary unskilled workers brought in just so the Tim Horton's and company can undercut wages of Canadians. If they want workers, they can pay the piper.
Integrating immigrants is really quite simple. If you bring in well educated immigrants that are fluent in English, they will integrate. It will not matter a lick what their background or skin colour is. On the other hand, if you bring in non English speaking uneducated immigrants to clean toilets and serve donuts at Tim Hortons, you have recipe for what happened in Europe, viz, poor race relations, xenophobia and illegal immigration. It is really that clear cut and Kenney should know this. Every expert on immigration does.
5) The Monarchy
Here again is my list. Of course, not all of them are terribly realistic, but so what
Things that need to be legalized
1) marijuana,
2) prostitution
3) euthanasia.
Needed Federal Programs
1) Dental care
2) Full day Kindergarten and Playschool
3) Natonal Drug plan
Upgrading of national standards
1) $10 hour National minimum wage indexed to inflation
2) Miniumum 4 weeks vacation a year. This is the European minimum.
3) Massive increase the number of ridings. The hinterlands have way too much electoral clout.
Things that need to be abolished
1) Native Rights If someone was to suggest that land should be reserved for, say, Chinese Canadians and that Chinese Canadians should have rights that other Canadians do not have, you would first ask them to lie down; you would then call 911 and tell the person at the other end of the line that you believe that the person before you had suffered a stroke and that paramedics should come quick. Whether it be billions lost to illegal cigarette sales, or setting up school food programs for kids who live on land that if divided equally would net them tens of millions on the open market, it hard to think of anything quite so daft.
A commitment to native rights and reserves condemns future generations to be born into a communities that are completely economically unviable. Without hope for a better future, these children will be plagued by the same problems that plagued their parents. Lamenting high infant mortality rates, teen pregnancy rates, teen drop out rates, crime rates and rapid substance abuse, means nota if you are setting in motion the very things you lament.
The same goes for racism. People can lament that racism still exists in Canada all they want. However,supporting a policy that defines native in the same manner that Nazis defined Jew and giving one particular group rights that no other groups enjoys, is preventing things from getting better. The bleeders should not kid themselves.
2) The Senate.
3) Family Unification If the main point of a high rate of immigration is to lessen the effects of an aging population, what sense does it make to allow immigrants to sponsor their parents and grandparents? The average immigrant to Canada is only a bit younger than the average Canadian. Now do not get me wrong. Canada needs more immigrants -- alot more. Canada needs to at least triple the number of economic immigrants to Canada each year. However at the same time as it needs to do that, it needs to all but eliminate every other category of immigrant. Also, there needs to be a greater emphasis and youth, and language skills.
4) The ability of employers to bring in unskilled temporary workers. The Canadian tax payer should not be paying to have temporary unskilled workers brought in just so the Tim Horton's and company can undercut wages of Canadians. If they want workers, they can pay the piper.
Integrating immigrants is really quite simple. If you bring in well educated immigrants that are fluent in English, they will integrate. It will not matter a lick what their background or skin colour is. On the other hand, if you bring in non English speaking uneducated immigrants to clean toilets and serve donuts at Tim Hortons, you have recipe for what happened in Europe, viz, poor race relations, xenophobia and illegal immigration. It is really that clear cut and Kenney should know this. Every expert on immigration does.
5) The Monarchy
The Liberals need to forget Chrétien majorities and build a movement
The Liberal's problem in nutshell is this. The Conservative party is part of larger conservative movement and very notion of liberal movement sounds well odd. Conservative party draws strength from the movement and movement in turn draws strength from having a party that reflects their values. There is no liberal movement in Canada and the Liberal party, especially under Ignatieff, has done nothing to foster one.
Without a core set of policy goals to work towards, it at little wonder why the Liberal party is purely reactive and dominated by short term thinking. Other than returning to power, the party has set itself no goals. This is marked contrast to Harper. Harper has a long term vision and long term strategy for how to accomplish it.
Chrétien's successes provide the Liberals with no template. The seas parted for Chrétien in 1993. The constitutional wars sidelined two two major federal parties (NDP and PCs) for a decade and gave birth to two new parties (Reform and Bloc). The Liberals were the only established party left standing after the 1993 election. His subsequent majorities were based on taking a 100 seats in Ontario. The Liberals would do well to pretend that they never happened.
Without a core set of policy goals to work towards, it at little wonder why the Liberal party is purely reactive and dominated by short term thinking. Other than returning to power, the party has set itself no goals. This is marked contrast to Harper. Harper has a long term vision and long term strategy for how to accomplish it.
Chrétien's successes provide the Liberals with no template. The seas parted for Chrétien in 1993. The constitutional wars sidelined two two major federal parties (NDP and PCs) for a decade and gave birth to two new parties (Reform and Bloc). The Liberals were the only established party left standing after the 1993 election. His subsequent majorities were based on taking a 100 seats in Ontario. The Liberals would do well to pretend that they never happened.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Jason Kenney Thinks Canadians are Morons
Jason Kenney must think that Canadians are morons. The notion that Canada will be able to better ingrate immigrants into Canadian society by teaching them about the beaver and Vimy Ridge is ridiculous.
Integrating immigrants is really quite simple. If you bring in well educated immigrants that are fluent in English, they will integrate. It will not matter a lick what their background or skin colour is. On the other hand, if you bring in non English speaking uneducated immigrants to clean toilets and serve donuts at Tim Hortons, you have recipe for what happened in Europe, viz, poor race relations, xenophobia and illegal immigration. It is really that clear cut and Kenney should know this. Every expert on immigration does.
The thing is though the number of guest workers allowed in has exploded since the Conservatives came to power and whereas the typical guest worker was once an American transferred to a branch office in Canada, the fastest growing category of guest worker is now the unskilled type with poor language skills. The Conservatives have not done this directly. They have turned over a greater percentage of the immigration file to the provinces and Western provinces in particular have used the program to undercut labour. The Canadian tax payer has paid through the noise to have cheap labour sent in from other countries for the sole purpose of cutting wages of the Canadian tax payer. Forget Conservative talk about such provincial programs bringing in much needed skilled workers, this was the kind of positions Alberta was hoping to fill through its guest worker programs this summer: Front desk clerk, short order cook, baker, maid, assembly line worker, server, buser, bellhop, valet, and cafeteria worker, laundry attendant, pet groomer, general labourer, and hair dresser. All that is required of such would be immigrants is that they score 4 or 24 on the language assessment. In other words, they can still be functionally illiterate and still get it in.
It takes a great deal of chutzpah to Kenney to talk about wanting to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and then go about encouraging the very thing that led to the creation of these communities in Europe, viz., importing gobs of unskilled guest labour.
Do not take my word for it. Take Sheila Fraser's word for it. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/auditor-general-sounds-alarm-on-immigration-policy/article1349837/
Integrating immigrants is really quite simple. If you bring in well educated immigrants that are fluent in English, they will integrate. It will not matter a lick what their background or skin colour is. On the other hand, if you bring in non English speaking uneducated immigrants to clean toilets and serve donuts at Tim Hortons, you have recipe for what happened in Europe, viz, poor race relations, xenophobia and illegal immigration. It is really that clear cut and Kenney should know this. Every expert on immigration does.
The thing is though the number of guest workers allowed in has exploded since the Conservatives came to power and whereas the typical guest worker was once an American transferred to a branch office in Canada, the fastest growing category of guest worker is now the unskilled type with poor language skills. The Conservatives have not done this directly. They have turned over a greater percentage of the immigration file to the provinces and Western provinces in particular have used the program to undercut labour. The Canadian tax payer has paid through the noise to have cheap labour sent in from other countries for the sole purpose of cutting wages of the Canadian tax payer. Forget Conservative talk about such provincial programs bringing in much needed skilled workers, this was the kind of positions Alberta was hoping to fill through its guest worker programs this summer: Front desk clerk, short order cook, baker, maid, assembly line worker, server, buser, bellhop, valet, and cafeteria worker, laundry attendant, pet groomer, general labourer, and hair dresser. All that is required of such would be immigrants is that they score 4 or 24 on the language assessment. In other words, they can still be functionally illiterate and still get it in.
It takes a great deal of chutzpah to Kenney to talk about wanting to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and then go about encouraging the very thing that led to the creation of these communities in Europe, viz., importing gobs of unskilled guest labour.
Do not take my word for it. Take Sheila Fraser's word for it. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/auditor-general-sounds-alarm-on-immigration-policy/article1349837/
Liberal Fund Raising Plea
When we were flush with cash, it was easy to poll for policy. Now that times are tight, we still poll --- more than anyone else I might add-- , but we do poll nearly enough. As result, we are essentially flying blind!!!!!!!! We do not have enough information to see which way the wind is blowing and tailor our policies to whims of public opinion. The policy cupboard is bare. Only more polling will change that.
Remember what separates us from the Conservatives is not policy. Not being able to poll for policy we have had to adopt their platform as our own well all the while voting against them in the house. No, what separates us is that they have opinions and we have none They shape opinion and events and we react to them -- well at least some of time. We have not bothered to say anything about Senate reform and the gun registry for years. Being significantly older than than those whipper snapper Conservatives MPs, we just do not have the energy. We old, tired and stuck in our ways. Help us.
Remember what separates us from the Conservatives is not policy. Not being able to poll for policy we have had to adopt their platform as our own well all the while voting against them in the house. No, what separates us is that they have opinions and we have none They shape opinion and events and we react to them -- well at least some of time. We have not bothered to say anything about Senate reform and the gun registry for years. Being significantly older than than those whipper snapper Conservatives MPs, we just do not have the energy. We old, tired and stuck in our ways. Help us.
Liberalism Is Dead
Small l liberalism in Canada is all but dead. The Chrétien and Martin fatally wounded it. Under Martin and Chrétien the Liberals abandoned universality, the heart of the Liberal brand, and favored instead means tested programs. Means tested social programs do not win elections; the populace is not going to get excited about paying for a service that only a small percentage of the public can use. By turning every social program on offer into a form of welfare, the ability of the Liberals to offer anything other than tax cuts is very limited. Sure enough the Liberals, despite their vacuous rhetoric to contrary, have become virtually indistinguishable from the Conservatives on most issues. Indeed, so in lock step are the Liberal and Conservative parties that a tax shift is considered a bold departure.
Having already insured that Conservatives and Liberals are of a piece when it comes to foreign policy, and pandering to Quebec nationalists, Ignatieff is poised to delivery the coup de grace. Under the guise of making the Liberals competitive again in rural Canada, the Ignatieff Liberals have made it clear that the Liberal party will never again to say or doing anything that might anger social conservatives. Small l liberalism is dead and with it the Liberal brand. It should also be said that this bolds ill for the Liberals electoral fortunes. If conservatism is what the public wants, they are going to prefer the real thing to some ill named Johnny come lately.
Having already insured that Conservatives and Liberals are of a piece when it comes to foreign policy, and pandering to Quebec nationalists, Ignatieff is poised to delivery the coup de grace. Under the guise of making the Liberals competitive again in rural Canada, the Ignatieff Liberals have made it clear that the Liberal party will never again to say or doing anything that might anger social conservatives. Small l liberalism is dead and with it the Liberal brand. It should also be said that this bolds ill for the Liberals electoral fortunes. If conservatism is what the public wants, they are going to prefer the real thing to some ill named Johnny come lately.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Why the Green Shift Failed
The Liberals actually did a nice job boiling down what the tax shift was. "Less on what you earn more on what you burn." However, the Liberals were never going to be able to explain to the public just what is "burnt" and as a result how such a shift would effect the cost of any number of goods and services. The Conservatives gave them an answer. It would be a "tax on everything". Naturally some Canadians were convinced that this was simply a tax increase in disguise. But the kicker was this. I do not care what Canadians told polling companies about climate change. No one I mean no is ever going to be excited over a tax shift. Making the central plank of his platform something that did not offer a single tangible benefit Canadians just went to show how hopeless Dion was as a politician and why he needed to be ushered out the door as soon as possible.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Is Igantieff just Visiting? I am starting to hope So
There were times over the last few months that when the Conservative Ignatieff just visiting ads came on that I thought to myself if only this were true. Last week I did not even need one of the ads to prompt such thoughts. I dreamt of driving him back to Harvard myself
Now do not get me wrong. Ignatieff is lot more salable than Dion ever was. No matter how much some people wanted to deny it, Dion's English was just not good enough and he came across as a consummate whimp. The Conservatives literally pooped on the guy. Ignatieff, at least, has a strong command of both languages and I never once thought of stealing his lunch money.
The problem with Igantieff is that as a politician he is a deathly boring panderer and amazingly insubstantive. He is of his party in other words. Martin had dreams of being all things to all people, but it was not until loosing power in 2006 that this sentiment really started to take hold of the party and has since culminated in Ignatieff's directionless leadership. A party that wants to be equal things to both social conservatives and social liberals, to both federalists and Quebec nationalists will not mean anything to anyone Ignatieff has stripped the party of any passion and any energy Indeed, the Liberals do not even pretend to stand for anything. When pressed as to why they have not introduced any policy, they either dodge the question or they answer in terms of political consequences. "The Conservatives might steal it" for example. Never mind the fact, that if the Conservatives are likely the steal it chances are it is not worth squat to begin with. Such messaging is only ever going to make sense to the dwindling number of Liberal die hards. Indeed, to your average voter, it does not matter a lick to your average voter whether another party steals a policy. What matters is whether they like that policy. And from a public policy point of view what matters is whether the policy is good for the country.
With the notable exception of the Dion's half baked notion that the Liberals could sail to victory by championing the environment, not since Trudeau have the Liberals been willing to advance anything resembling an agenda. In the Chretein and Martin years the Liberals did not so much advance policy as -- at least in their telling of it -- have it forced upon them either by external forces or by the courts. SSM is a classic case in point. The Liberals framed the issue as something that they had been forced to do. As Martin put it, you can not cherry pick charter rights; you take the good with bad. SSM was the just the price for having other rights guarnteed. SSM was the straight man's burden to bear.
All of this is in marked contrast to the Conservatives going all the way back to Mulroney. Whether it be an the idiotic idea of a Triple E senate or equally stupid idea of shutting the "long registry", full blooded Conservative parties have always known what they want and they have been willing to pursue it. What this has meant in the greater scheme of things is that just as the Liberals have feetered away the advantage their once mighty brand gave them the Conservatives have replaced the Liberals as the natural governing party of Canada.
The Liberals can not afford to not weigh in on contenious issues. Playing itself will not rebuild their brand. Playing it safe will not win them the next election. Playing it safe will mean a Conservative majority.
Now do not get me wrong. Ignatieff is lot more salable than Dion ever was. No matter how much some people wanted to deny it, Dion's English was just not good enough and he came across as a consummate whimp. The Conservatives literally pooped on the guy. Ignatieff, at least, has a strong command of both languages and I never once thought of stealing his lunch money.
The problem with Igantieff is that as a politician he is a deathly boring panderer and amazingly insubstantive. He is of his party in other words. Martin had dreams of being all things to all people, but it was not until loosing power in 2006 that this sentiment really started to take hold of the party and has since culminated in Ignatieff's directionless leadership. A party that wants to be equal things to both social conservatives and social liberals, to both federalists and Quebec nationalists will not mean anything to anyone Ignatieff has stripped the party of any passion and any energy Indeed, the Liberals do not even pretend to stand for anything. When pressed as to why they have not introduced any policy, they either dodge the question or they answer in terms of political consequences. "The Conservatives might steal it" for example. Never mind the fact, that if the Conservatives are likely the steal it chances are it is not worth squat to begin with. Such messaging is only ever going to make sense to the dwindling number of Liberal die hards. Indeed, to your average voter, it does not matter a lick to your average voter whether another party steals a policy. What matters is whether they like that policy. And from a public policy point of view what matters is whether the policy is good for the country.
With the notable exception of the Dion's half baked notion that the Liberals could sail to victory by championing the environment, not since Trudeau have the Liberals been willing to advance anything resembling an agenda. In the Chretein and Martin years the Liberals did not so much advance policy as -- at least in their telling of it -- have it forced upon them either by external forces or by the courts. SSM is a classic case in point. The Liberals framed the issue as something that they had been forced to do. As Martin put it, you can not cherry pick charter rights; you take the good with bad. SSM was the just the price for having other rights guarnteed. SSM was the straight man's burden to bear.
All of this is in marked contrast to the Conservatives going all the way back to Mulroney. Whether it be an the idiotic idea of a Triple E senate or equally stupid idea of shutting the "long registry", full blooded Conservative parties have always known what they want and they have been willing to pursue it. What this has meant in the greater scheme of things is that just as the Liberals have feetered away the advantage their once mighty brand gave them the Conservatives have replaced the Liberals as the natural governing party of Canada.
The Liberals can not afford to not weigh in on contenious issues. Playing itself will not rebuild their brand. Playing it safe will not win them the next election. Playing it safe will mean a Conservative majority.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
"Amending hate crime legislation to include 'sex'": Its A Terrible Idea
The Liberal Women's caucus wants to "Amend existing hate crime legislation to include “sex”, the legal description for gender."
http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/pinkbook_en.pdf
The whole point of hate crime legislation is not to further punish any crime that is motivated by hate. That would be a long list indeed. No the point of such legislation is instrumental and not punitive. The purpose is to target organizations (e.g., the KKK) and segments of the population (e.g., young males who routinely beat up gay males for sport) who target identifiable groups (e.g, racial minorities) for no other reason than what members of these groups look like or what sex they sleep with. As women in Canada are not targeted by various fringe groups or targeted and beaten up by gangs of bored youth, there is no reason to include women in such at list.
It is only the instrumental function of such legislation that half way justifies such a policy. If it serves no instrumental purpose, handing out different sentences depending on who is victimized is a perversion of justice.
This is not to say that there might not be cause in the future. Take what has happened in France with regard to the hijab. Many French officials argued for a ban on religious symbols in schools because of the threat of violence many young French muslim women and girls felt if they did not don a hijab. If such a menace was to arise here in Canada, using hate crime legislation to target those, who use violence to enforce such a dress code, may be in order.
http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/pinkbook_en.pdf
The whole point of hate crime legislation is not to further punish any crime that is motivated by hate. That would be a long list indeed. No the point of such legislation is instrumental and not punitive. The purpose is to target organizations (e.g., the KKK) and segments of the population (e.g., young males who routinely beat up gay males for sport) who target identifiable groups (e.g, racial minorities) for no other reason than what members of these groups look like or what sex they sleep with. As women in Canada are not targeted by various fringe groups or targeted and beaten up by gangs of bored youth, there is no reason to include women in such at list.
It is only the instrumental function of such legislation that half way justifies such a policy. If it serves no instrumental purpose, handing out different sentences depending on who is victimized is a perversion of justice.
This is not to say that there might not be cause in the future. Take what has happened in France with regard to the hijab. Many French officials argued for a ban on religious symbols in schools because of the threat of violence many young French muslim women and girls felt if they did not don a hijab. If such a menace was to arise here in Canada, using hate crime legislation to target those, who use violence to enforce such a dress code, may be in order.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Liberals Ignore Non-Religious Canadians at their own Peril
It is high time those Liberals who encourage the party to court evangelicals address the non-religious elephant in the living room. When it comes to religion, by far the quickest growing group in absolute terms is non-religious Canadians. 16.2 % of Canadians describe themselves as non-religious in the 2001 census; this represented a 44% increase since 1991 and increase of nearly 1.5 million. According to 2008 stats Canada study by 2005, that number had reached 22% amongst those over 15. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-630-x/2008001/article/10650-eng.pdf There are far more non-religious Canadians than there are evangelicals Canadians and non-religious Canadians are younger. Your average non-religious person is 31. Your average baptist, for example, is 39. Furthermore, the extent of such a trend is masked by the fact that the overwhelming majority of Quebecers still identify as being Catholic even as Church attendance in Quebec continues to plummet there and 43% of Canadians did not attend a place of worship in the last year. Add to all of this the fact that growth of non -religious voters is concentrated in the very areas in which the Liberals stand a chance of winning some seats. For instance, 42% of Vancouverites describe themselves as non-religious.
Evangelical Fellowship of Canada Study of evangelical voting patterns is full of Holes
According to The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada between 1996 and 2008 evangelical Canadians left the Liberals in favour of the NDP and Conservatives. Their conclusions are based on 5 different polls. One taken in 1996, one in 2003, one in 2004, an exit poll in 2006, and finally one taken 2008.
http://files.efc-canada.net/min/rc/cft/V02I03/Evangelical_Voting_Trends_1996-2008.pdf
Their conclusions are problematic. One look at the 1996 is enough to cast doubt on their conclusions.
Among decided voters, the 1996 poll showed the Liberals leading the Reform party 45.7% to 24.7 in Western Canada and 58.8 to 8.2 in Ontario. The poll also had the Liberals ahead of the Bloc 49.2 to 33.8 in Quebec and ahead of the PCs 60 to 21.3 in Atlantic Canada. A Year later, this is how things broke down in the 1997 election. Reform finished with 42.8% in Western Canada and 19.1% in Ontario. The Liberals meanwhile captured 27.7% of popular vote in Western Canada and 49.5% in Ontario. The Liberals captured 36.7% of the vote of the popular vote in Quebec and 34% in Atlantic Canada.
There is no basis for considering this poll. It is an obvious outlier.
The 2003 poll is better, but still support for Canadian Alliance looks to be massively understated.
The 2003 poll put the Liberals at 53.3% in Ontario and the Canadian Alliance at 10%. The same poll had the Liberals leading the Canadian Alliance 34.8 to 24.7% in Western Canada.
In the 2000 election the Canadian Alliance took 49.6% of the popular vote in Western Canada and 23.6% of the vote in Ontario During the 2004 election, the Conservatives took 31.5 of the vote in Ontario and 45.3% in Western Canada.
Still based on the other polls, there is evidence of evangelical Canadians having left the Liberals for the Conservatives in slightly greater numbers than the rest of the population in Ontario between 2004 and 2006 and that this trend increased much more so between 2006 and 2008. In the whole of Canada, the Liberal evangelical vote collapsed in 2008.
What there is not evidence for that the evangelical voters left the Liberals for the NDP. Sure, between 2006 and 2008 there does appear movement from the Liberals to the NDP in Ontario However, this is not matched elsewhere and seems to have more to do with NDP taking northern Ontario away from the Liberals. Indeed, 2008 the evangelicals in Western Canada left the NDP in far greater numbers than they did the Liberals. Furthermore, that poll seems to have understated Liberal and Conservative support; it put the Liberals at 28.2 and they finsished with 33.8; and it put the Conservatives at 35.3% and they finished with 39.2%.
The contention of the authors that evangelicals left the Liberals because they felt hard done by is simply not supported by the evidence. Even the notion that evangleical voters left the Liberals because of SSM is problemtic albeit plausible. Only 25% of evangelical voters listed "moral issues" as determining how they voted and this included both SSM and the sponorship scandal. Based strictly on the numbers one would have to say that Green Shift drove more evangelicals away than SSM ever did.
http://files.efc-canada.net/min/rc/cft/V02I03/Evangelical_Voting_Trends_1996-2008.pdf
Their conclusions are problematic. One look at the 1996 is enough to cast doubt on their conclusions.
Among decided voters, the 1996 poll showed the Liberals leading the Reform party 45.7% to 24.7 in Western Canada and 58.8 to 8.2 in Ontario. The poll also had the Liberals ahead of the Bloc 49.2 to 33.8 in Quebec and ahead of the PCs 60 to 21.3 in Atlantic Canada. A Year later, this is how things broke down in the 1997 election. Reform finished with 42.8% in Western Canada and 19.1% in Ontario. The Liberals meanwhile captured 27.7% of popular vote in Western Canada and 49.5% in Ontario. The Liberals captured 36.7% of the vote of the popular vote in Quebec and 34% in Atlantic Canada.
There is no basis for considering this poll. It is an obvious outlier.
The 2003 poll is better, but still support for Canadian Alliance looks to be massively understated.
The 2003 poll put the Liberals at 53.3% in Ontario and the Canadian Alliance at 10%. The same poll had the Liberals leading the Canadian Alliance 34.8 to 24.7% in Western Canada.
In the 2000 election the Canadian Alliance took 49.6% of the popular vote in Western Canada and 23.6% of the vote in Ontario During the 2004 election, the Conservatives took 31.5 of the vote in Ontario and 45.3% in Western Canada.
Still based on the other polls, there is evidence of evangelical Canadians having left the Liberals for the Conservatives in slightly greater numbers than the rest of the population in Ontario between 2004 and 2006 and that this trend increased much more so between 2006 and 2008. In the whole of Canada, the Liberal evangelical vote collapsed in 2008.
What there is not evidence for that the evangelical voters left the Liberals for the NDP. Sure, between 2006 and 2008 there does appear movement from the Liberals to the NDP in Ontario However, this is not matched elsewhere and seems to have more to do with NDP taking northern Ontario away from the Liberals. Indeed, 2008 the evangelicals in Western Canada left the NDP in far greater numbers than they did the Liberals. Furthermore, that poll seems to have understated Liberal and Conservative support; it put the Liberals at 28.2 and they finsished with 33.8; and it put the Conservatives at 35.3% and they finished with 39.2%.
The contention of the authors that evangelicals left the Liberals because they felt hard done by is simply not supported by the evidence. Even the notion that evangleical voters left the Liberals because of SSM is problemtic albeit plausible. Only 25% of evangelical voters listed "moral issues" as determining how they voted and this included both SSM and the sponorship scandal. Based strictly on the numbers one would have to say that Green Shift drove more evangelicals away than SSM ever did.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
The political consquences of Means tested Social policy and making early childhood education Pay off Politically
Under Martin and Chretien the Liberals abandoned universality in favor of means tested programs. This pleased Stephen Harper. "Universality has been severely reduced: it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy…These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party" Dion continued in this vein and today Michael Igantieff also does. By turning every social program on offer into a form of welfare, the ability of the Liberals to offer anything other than tax cuts is very limited. It goes without saying that means tested social programs do not win elections; the populace is not going to get excited about paying for a service that only a small percentage of the public can use. Without returning to the concept of the universality the Liberals are destined to become virtually indistinguishable from the Conservatives on all but social issues and Ignatieff seems hell bent on changing that.
Of course, the one exception to such a dispiriting turn is the Liberals early childhood proposal. However, even here there are major problems. First and foremost, it is unclear as to what the Liberals are offering. The goal of the program was ostensibly to work with the provinces to set up an early childhood education program for children under 6. However, to the average voter this amounted to little more than a vague promise to provide more daycare -- which the Liberals said early childhood education was not --- at sometime in the future; they could not figure out what this would mean for their lives. To add insult to injury, Liberals willingness to consider different deals for different provinces has muddied things all the more.
If the Liberals reintroduce such a program in the future, they need to present it in a form in which voters can understand. This is what they should do. They should promise to provide all day preschool and kindergarten for every 4 and 5 year old in Canada.
Of course, the one exception to such a dispiriting turn is the Liberals early childhood proposal. However, even here there are major problems. First and foremost, it is unclear as to what the Liberals are offering. The goal of the program was ostensibly to work with the provinces to set up an early childhood education program for children under 6. However, to the average voter this amounted to little more than a vague promise to provide more daycare -- which the Liberals said early childhood education was not --- at sometime in the future; they could not figure out what this would mean for their lives. To add insult to injury, Liberals willingness to consider different deals for different provinces has muddied things all the more.
If the Liberals reintroduce such a program in the future, they need to present it in a form in which voters can understand. This is what they should do. They should promise to provide all day preschool and kindergarten for every 4 and 5 year old in Canada.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Fall unfolding like it always does
Its fall, and like every fall the leaves are turning colour and beginning to fall and Conservatives are beating the Liberals like circus monkeys. It is true; the Conservatives do not have much front end talent when compared to past Liberal governments and we are all the worse for it. However, one thing the Conservatives have that the Liberals do not is back room boys with a clue. Given all summer to prepare, the Liberals brass gave us Michael in the woods. Michael in the Woods! Scott Reid and David Herle were rightly ridiculed for what happened to the Liberals in 2004 and 2006. However, when lined up against who has come since they look like geniuses.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Euthanasia and Afghanistan: Ignatieff must pass the test
The Ignatieff faces two upcoming litmus tests. The first one is Quebec's euthanasia debate; Quebec doctors want it. If the Liberals are so thick as to not throw their weight behind Quebec doctors, they deserve to loose the next election. The second is Afghanistan. The Conservatives promised to extend the Afghanistan mission past 2011. This is an opportunity. Spending a billions on mission that is doomed to failure and greatly increases the likelihood that Canada will be attacked by terrorists home grown or otherwise. However, given Igantieff's track record, I would not hold my breath.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
The Conservative's Baby Bonus
Give the Tories credit. In marked contrast to the Liberal's early childhood education plan, the Tory baby bonus is truly universal, and did not take years to implement. Once upon a time the Liberals believed in universality. However, beyond half heartedly defending universal social programs they introduced in the 1960s, the Liberals idea of universality these days is pandering to all groups in equal measure. Ever since Martin and Chretein the Liberals have supported nothing but means tested social programs and an early childhood education plan that was so inadequately funded it hardly deserved to be called universal. The Liberals are kidding themselves if they think they can win elections by promising benefits to one group of people and having us all pay for that program. Given a choice between Tory tax cuts and paying for other people's social services, the portion of the populace that is not eligible --pretty much everybody --- will take the offer of a Tory tax cuts every time. Furthermore, it is also infinitely easier to explain a universal social program --- everybody gets X -- then it is explaining a means tested policy.
Liberals, Conservatives and Law and Order Issues
The political advantage the Conservatives get from justice issues is not from their being major differences between the major parties, but from other factors. One such factor is the very subject being debated. As Tom Flanagan crowed after the 2006 election, there are certain issues that favour the Conservatives and the economy is one. No matter how successful the Liberals were in balancing the books and creating jobs, Conservative research suggested that when it came to economics people trusted the Conservatives more than they did the Liberals. It not much of leap to suggest the same is true for crime. After all, to presume that the public has a working knowledge of each party's justice policies is giving the public way too much credit; the public trades in stereotypes and they are always going to believe that Conservatives are tougher. This is especially so now. The Conservatives are in power and while 'tougher' crime measures grab headlines, Liberal support for those measures does not. To add insult to injury even if the Liberals were able to convince Canadians that they support all Conservative measures, and I very much doubt that they can, the Conservatives have argued and will continue to argue that Liberals had ability to introduce such policies when they were in power and failed to do so. In sum, sentencing measures, are a loosing proposition for the Liberals and following in line will not stop the bleeding. The public discourse is not evidence based.
So what can the Liberals do when it comes to justice issues. They have to change the debate to one about sentencing to one based on the law itself. This always ignites debate; for in marked contrast to sentencing issues, were the public's profound ignorance and dogmatism crowds out any debate, the public loves discussing such issues. Doing so also changes the political dynamics; the Liberals go from looking weak to looking edgy and the Conservatives go from looking tough to looking regressive. Trudeau's Omnibus bill was edgy; SSM was edgy. Of course this presupposes that there are issues that the Liberals can throw their support behind and not get killed politically. Luckily for the Liberals there are two. The first one is euthanasia and the if the Liberals are so thick as to not throw their weight behind Quebec doctors, they deserve to loose the next election. This one is a no brainier. The other one is an issue I have been harping on for years and that is the legalization of marijuana.
Now whenever I have suggested such a position before I have been greeted by a scores of Liberals suggesting that decrimalization and not legalization is the way to go. My answer as always been the same. There is no political benefit to merely decriminalizing marijuana; among other things, it is just not that edgy and it does not break open the libertarian social conservative divide. Furthermore, the Liberals really need to take a stand. They can not continue to straddle both sides of political divide. When it comes to marijuana for example their position on possession has been pretty lax since Chretein quipped that he would have a joint in one hand and the money for his fine in other. At the same time, they have been ever more supportive of tougher penalties for drug trafficking . To say that such stances are mutually inconsistent would be an understatement. How can consuming a joint be no worse than speeding and something virtually every Liberal leader can laugh about but passing one worthy of a year in jail?
So what can the Liberals do when it comes to justice issues. They have to change the debate to one about sentencing to one based on the law itself. This always ignites debate; for in marked contrast to sentencing issues, were the public's profound ignorance and dogmatism crowds out any debate, the public loves discussing such issues. Doing so also changes the political dynamics; the Liberals go from looking weak to looking edgy and the Conservatives go from looking tough to looking regressive. Trudeau's Omnibus bill was edgy; SSM was edgy. Of course this presupposes that there are issues that the Liberals can throw their support behind and not get killed politically. Luckily for the Liberals there are two. The first one is euthanasia and the if the Liberals are so thick as to not throw their weight behind Quebec doctors, they deserve to loose the next election. This one is a no brainier. The other one is an issue I have been harping on for years and that is the legalization of marijuana.
Now whenever I have suggested such a position before I have been greeted by a scores of Liberals suggesting that decrimalization and not legalization is the way to go. My answer as always been the same. There is no political benefit to merely decriminalizing marijuana; among other things, it is just not that edgy and it does not break open the libertarian social conservative divide. Furthermore, the Liberals really need to take a stand. They can not continue to straddle both sides of political divide. When it comes to marijuana for example their position on possession has been pretty lax since Chretein quipped that he would have a joint in one hand and the money for his fine in other. At the same time, they have been ever more supportive of tougher penalties for drug trafficking . To say that such stances are mutually inconsistent would be an understatement. How can consuming a joint be no worse than speeding and something virtually every Liberal leader can laugh about but passing one worthy of a year in jail?
Monday, October 05, 2009
Liberals Can No Longer stay the Course
There is no evidence that the Conservatives are going to impode. Indeed, far from it. All the evidence suggests that the Conservative numbers have returned to where they have been for almost 4 years now, i.e., around 36 to 37 percent. The Liberal spring numbers appear now as fleeting and shallow as the Montreal convention numbers. Furthermore, outside of Quebec, there no evidence that the Liberals are making any inroads. This is in marked contrast to what the Conservatives are doing; the Conservatives seem to be consolidating some of the gains they made in Ontario, the Maritimes and in BC at the Liberals expense during Dion's reign.
Needless to say, there also no evidence that Michael Igantieff has the ability to charm. He is not charismatic; he is not funny; and he does not wow people with his looks. Strip away the intellectual and there is nothing there to sell. Those liberal bloggers that trumpeted the Michael in the woods ads as being positive ought of be ashamed of themselves. The ad was predictably bad -- although no worse than the horrible "positive" ads Dion ran in the last election. If the Liberals are going to continue to run away from substantive issues, I at least hope the Liberal brass comes to realize that when it comes to ads "we can do better" we can go negative. Now to be fair, the party is not the only one falling down on selling the leader; Igantieff's attempt to appear rooted by intertwining his family's personal history with that of country's bores both the public and pundits to tears.
So were do the Liberals go from here. They have to reverse course. So far the Liberal approach has been to move closer to the Conservatives on the big picture issues (e.g., Afghanistan, taxes and crime) well all the well hyping minor differences and shrilly complaining about minor scandals. Such an approach is doomed to failure. Your average Canadian knows next to nothing about politics, especially about political minutiae, and furthermore does not care that it does not know, . If the Liberals continue down this road, the Liberals will be no better off than they are now. A bored and apathetic public will return a Conservative minority to power or worse give Harper a majority.
The Liberals have to run towards controversial social issues and not away from them. Ignatieff has spent too much time in the US. The party has deluded itself into believing that issues such as same same marriage and the gun registry has hurt the party in Ontario, especially with evangalgical voters. There is very little to recommend such a blinkered view. 1) The combined Alliance and PC vote in 2000 was much higher than the total Conservative vote in 2004. Ontario residents did not migrate to the NDP because they were miffed about SSM and the gun registry implemented some 6 years before. 2) To pretend that Liberal Onatrio totals between 1993 and 2000 were normal is laughable. The country voted regionally like never before and this included Ontario. 3) While there is no evidence to suggest that SSM cost the Liberals a single seat west of Ontario, there is evidence to believe that such policies helped the Liberals in the Lowermainland. The Liberals went up there in 2004 and 2006 despite a marked downturn in national numbers. 4) Quebec is the one part of Canada the Liberals have change to grow and social liberalism seems the best means of putting the Conservatives on the run there and attracting Quebec voters.
Above all else, the Liberals need to again embrace universality. That means embracing the social democratic success of the 1960s, the core of the party's brand and promising to build on them. It also means abandoning, as much as possible, the degenerite liberalism assocaited with collective rights, affirmative action and asymmetrical federalism.
Needless to say, there also no evidence that Michael Igantieff has the ability to charm. He is not charismatic; he is not funny; and he does not wow people with his looks. Strip away the intellectual and there is nothing there to sell. Those liberal bloggers that trumpeted the Michael in the woods ads as being positive ought of be ashamed of themselves. The ad was predictably bad -- although no worse than the horrible "positive" ads Dion ran in the last election. If the Liberals are going to continue to run away from substantive issues, I at least hope the Liberal brass comes to realize that when it comes to ads "we can do better" we can go negative. Now to be fair, the party is not the only one falling down on selling the leader; Igantieff's attempt to appear rooted by intertwining his family's personal history with that of country's bores both the public and pundits to tears.
So were do the Liberals go from here. They have to reverse course. So far the Liberal approach has been to move closer to the Conservatives on the big picture issues (e.g., Afghanistan, taxes and crime) well all the well hyping minor differences and shrilly complaining about minor scandals. Such an approach is doomed to failure. Your average Canadian knows next to nothing about politics, especially about political minutiae, and furthermore does not care that it does not know, . If the Liberals continue down this road, the Liberals will be no better off than they are now. A bored and apathetic public will return a Conservative minority to power or worse give Harper a majority.
The Liberals have to run towards controversial social issues and not away from them. Ignatieff has spent too much time in the US. The party has deluded itself into believing that issues such as same same marriage and the gun registry has hurt the party in Ontario, especially with evangalgical voters. There is very little to recommend such a blinkered view. 1) The combined Alliance and PC vote in 2000 was much higher than the total Conservative vote in 2004. Ontario residents did not migrate to the NDP because they were miffed about SSM and the gun registry implemented some 6 years before. 2) To pretend that Liberal Onatrio totals between 1993 and 2000 were normal is laughable. The country voted regionally like never before and this included Ontario. 3) While there is no evidence to suggest that SSM cost the Liberals a single seat west of Ontario, there is evidence to believe that such policies helped the Liberals in the Lowermainland. The Liberals went up there in 2004 and 2006 despite a marked downturn in national numbers. 4) Quebec is the one part of Canada the Liberals have change to grow and social liberalism seems the best means of putting the Conservatives on the run there and attracting Quebec voters.
Above all else, the Liberals need to again embrace universality. That means embracing the social democratic success of the 1960s, the core of the party's brand and promising to build on them. It also means abandoning, as much as possible, the degenerite liberalism assocaited with collective rights, affirmative action and asymmetrical federalism.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Ignatieff and crew: Too boring not too Toronto
Word has it that Ignatieff and crew are too 416 heavy. The pundits are wrong. No self respecting urbanite would identify with party that is about as edgy as Mr Rogers. The Liberals are the party of the status quo and their vote for us we are safe and boring mantra appeals to no one.
The Liberals have forgotten their roots. Sure they talk about Lester Pearson, Trudeau, Health care and the Canadian pension plan. However, the party has abandoned the principle of universality and it is hard see this group of insipid accountants introducing anything half as bold as Trudeau's Omnibus bill. If they ever want regain the interest of Canadians, they better give both a hard look.
The Liberals have forgotten their roots. Sure they talk about Lester Pearson, Trudeau, Health care and the Canadian pension plan. However, the party has abandoned the principle of universality and it is hard see this group of insipid accountants introducing anything half as bold as Trudeau's Omnibus bill. If they ever want regain the interest of Canadians, they better give both a hard look.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
My Political Wish List
Things that need to be legalized
1) marijuana,
2) prostitution
3) euthanasia.
Needed Federal Programs
1) Dental dental
2) National Child Care program
3) Natonal Drug plan
Upgrading of national standards
1) National minimum wage
2) Miniumum 4 weeks vacation a year. This is the European minimum.
3) Massive increase the number of ridings. The hinterlands have way too much electoral clout.
Things that need to be abolished
1) Native Rights If someone was to suggest that land should be reserved for, say, Chinese Canadians and that Chinese Canadians should have rights that other Canadians do not have, you would first ask them to lie down; you would then call 911 and tell the person at the other end of the line that you believe that the person before you had suffered a stroke and that paramedics should come quick. Whether it be billions lost to illegal cigarette sales, or setting up school food programs for kids who live on land that if divided equally would net them tens of millions on the open market, it hard to think of anything quite so daft.
2) The Senate.
3) Family Unification If the main point of a high rate of immigration is to lessen the effects of an aging population, what sense does it make to allow immigrants to sponsor their parents and grandparents? The average immigrant to Canada is only a bit younger than the average Canadian. Now do not get me wrong. Canada needs more immigrants -- alot more. Canada needs to at least triple the number of economic immigrants to Canada each year. However at the same time as it needs to do that, it needs to all but eliminate every other category of immigrant. Also, there needs to be a greater emphasis and youth, and language skills.
4) The ability of employers to bring in unskilled temporary workers. The Canadian tax payer should not be paying to have temporary unskilled workers brought in just so the Tim Horton's and company can undercut wages of Canadians. If they want workers, they can pay the piper.
1) marijuana,
2) prostitution
3) euthanasia.
Needed Federal Programs
1) Dental dental
2) National Child Care program
3) Natonal Drug plan
Upgrading of national standards
1) National minimum wage
2) Miniumum 4 weeks vacation a year. This is the European minimum.
3) Massive increase the number of ridings. The hinterlands have way too much electoral clout.
Things that need to be abolished
1) Native Rights If someone was to suggest that land should be reserved for, say, Chinese Canadians and that Chinese Canadians should have rights that other Canadians do not have, you would first ask them to lie down; you would then call 911 and tell the person at the other end of the line that you believe that the person before you had suffered a stroke and that paramedics should come quick. Whether it be billions lost to illegal cigarette sales, or setting up school food programs for kids who live on land that if divided equally would net them tens of millions on the open market, it hard to think of anything quite so daft.
2) The Senate.
3) Family Unification If the main point of a high rate of immigration is to lessen the effects of an aging population, what sense does it make to allow immigrants to sponsor their parents and grandparents? The average immigrant to Canada is only a bit younger than the average Canadian. Now do not get me wrong. Canada needs more immigrants -- alot more. Canada needs to at least triple the number of economic immigrants to Canada each year. However at the same time as it needs to do that, it needs to all but eliminate every other category of immigrant. Also, there needs to be a greater emphasis and youth, and language skills.
4) The ability of employers to bring in unskilled temporary workers. The Canadian tax payer should not be paying to have temporary unskilled workers brought in just so the Tim Horton's and company can undercut wages of Canadians. If they want workers, they can pay the piper.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
The Liberal Ads are Stupid
The Liberals think they can win by being dull, boring, middle of the road and above all nice. The Liberals strategists seem convinced that if only the Liberals successfully put the Canadian people asleep, when they wake they will vote Liberal in droves. This is the only way of making sense of those moronic Michael in the woods ads and party's complete unwillingness to release interesting policy.
Of course the ads are more than just a complete waste of money. It is hard to think of an ad campaign that could do more harm. Ignatieff has all the charisma of a funeral home director --- and rather than distract Canadians focus they draw attention to this very fact. To add insult to injury, the ads build on the campaign the Conservatives unleashed against Dion. The Conservatives successfully painted Dion as a wimp. Apparently, the Liberals decided that why stop with Dion? Why not portray the entire Liberal party as wimps? The Liberals can support any number of brain dead Conservative crime bills. It will not do a lick of good if the Liberals are spending millions having Igantieff say some motivational crap in the middle of a forest. He is sweater short of Mr Rogers. Nothing says soft on crime like a forest setting, cheesy music and promise that "we can do better".
If the Liberals truly wanted to counter the Conservative ad campaign, then they could first unveil some bold new policy. With no Liberal platform to speak of, the Conservatives are having a easy time portraying Ignatieff as in it only for himself. The Liberals can also start firing back. That would at least show that public that Ignatieff was not a wimp like Dion was. Be more like Trudeau. He literally told his political opponents to fuck off.
The Conservatives have made Ignatieff's past an issue. So make Stephen Harper's past an issue. Juxtapose Harper's serial Canadian bashing with Ignatieff's academic, and journalistic achievments. Yes I know that would mean bringing the cosmopotain Ignatieff out of the closest. However, the notion this was something to be downplayed and did play well in seats that the Liberals actually have a chance of winning is ridiculous. For the hundred time the Liberals need to regain what they lost in suburban Toronto, and Vancouver and hope for breakthrough in Quebec. The flip side of dragging the cosmopotain Ignatieff out of closet is that doing so might stop Ignatieff from turning every other speech into a talk about his long dead relatives.
Of course the ads are more than just a complete waste of money. It is hard to think of an ad campaign that could do more harm. Ignatieff has all the charisma of a funeral home director --- and rather than distract Canadians focus they draw attention to this very fact. To add insult to injury, the ads build on the campaign the Conservatives unleashed against Dion. The Conservatives successfully painted Dion as a wimp. Apparently, the Liberals decided that why stop with Dion? Why not portray the entire Liberal party as wimps? The Liberals can support any number of brain dead Conservative crime bills. It will not do a lick of good if the Liberals are spending millions having Igantieff say some motivational crap in the middle of a forest. He is sweater short of Mr Rogers. Nothing says soft on crime like a forest setting, cheesy music and promise that "we can do better".
If the Liberals truly wanted to counter the Conservative ad campaign, then they could first unveil some bold new policy. With no Liberal platform to speak of, the Conservatives are having a easy time portraying Ignatieff as in it only for himself. The Liberals can also start firing back. That would at least show that public that Ignatieff was not a wimp like Dion was. Be more like Trudeau. He literally told his political opponents to fuck off.
The Conservatives have made Ignatieff's past an issue. So make Stephen Harper's past an issue. Juxtapose Harper's serial Canadian bashing with Ignatieff's academic, and journalistic achievments. Yes I know that would mean bringing the cosmopotain Ignatieff out of the closest. However, the notion this was something to be downplayed and did play well in seats that the Liberals actually have a chance of winning is ridiculous. For the hundred time the Liberals need to regain what they lost in suburban Toronto, and Vancouver and hope for breakthrough in Quebec. The flip side of dragging the cosmopotain Ignatieff out of closet is that doing so might stop Ignatieff from turning every other speech into a talk about his long dead relatives.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Afghan Myths
1) They want us there. In the country as a whole this is true, but in 4 provinces where the fighting is concentrated it is not. Over 2 thirds of Afghans in Kandahar province want us gone.
2) The Afghan army is making progress. Indeed they are. However three things need to be pointed out. One, the army is made up of a dispropriate number of ethnic minorities, e.g., Harara in the Kandahar region. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/12/08/081208fa_fact_wood Far from being a source of stability this can be source of instability. Two, the capability of the Taliban is growing faster than the effectiveness of the Afghan army. As one US marine was recently commented, "they fight like marines now". And of course they do; every technique that the US passes on to the Afghan army is passed on to the Taliban. Three, the army might be doing better, but the Afghan police force is still an unmediated disaster.
3) If Canada leaves, then Afghanistan risks again becoming home to Al Qaeda training bases. This is just silly. For starters, if Canada leaves, the US will still be there. For another 911 gave the US carte blanche to take out any Al Qaeada base in Afghanistan until the end of time. For Christ sakes, the US has no qualms about targeting Al Qaeda figures in Pakistan.
4) Canada being there makes us less likely to be attacked. Thank god we have moved beyond this little ditty. This talking point has always been the height of intellectual dishonsty To wit: When the would be Ontario bombers were arrested Andrew Coyne noted on the National that Al Qaeda had long listed Canada as a potential target, that no Western country is immune from attack, and that the arrests were yet further reason for pursuing a more muscular approach in Afghanistan. What Coyne failed to note however was that the would be bombers did not have any connection to Al Qaeda, according to the Crown the accused were motivated by the Afghan mission and the reason Al Qaeda has targeted Canada is because of our presence in Afghanistan. This is the Al Qaeda threat Coyne was referring to.
“What do your governments want from their alliance with America in attacking usin Afghanistan? I mention in particular Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germanyand Australia.”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/osamabinladen/tape.html
(Subsequently, Al Qaeda twice threatened Canada with terror acts because of Afghanistan. In one of those times, Al Qaeda’s second in command referred to Canada has “second rate crusaders”. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e9f20f44-ec19-470c-9ac3-6c79218d4d91 )
Only an ideologue would have the chutzpah to use Al Qaeda’s threat related to our presence in Afghanistan as proof that Al Qaeda will attack any western target, as if Switzerland and the US are equally likely targets, and that we should therefore step up operations in Afghanistan.
Of course, the threat the Afghan mission poises to Canada goes beyond the economics and loss of life. A terrorist attack, inspired by Canada 's presence in Afghanistan, might revitalize the Quebec’s separatist movement, especially if Quebec is the victim. Currently the Afghan mission is opposed by 70% of Quebecers. If Quebecers die as a result of us being there, the separatists will use it as a reason why Quebecers need their own country with its own foreign policy. Given what has transpired in Ontario, what happened in Spain and Britain, the chances of such an attack or not insignificant.
Finally, 20% of Canadians are born outside the country and Canada has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world. A terrorist attack has the potential to badly maul Canada's social fabric.
2) The Afghan army is making progress. Indeed they are. However three things need to be pointed out. One, the army is made up of a dispropriate number of ethnic minorities, e.g., Harara in the Kandahar region. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/12/08/081208fa_fact_wood Far from being a source of stability this can be source of instability. Two, the capability of the Taliban is growing faster than the effectiveness of the Afghan army. As one US marine was recently commented, "they fight like marines now". And of course they do; every technique that the US passes on to the Afghan army is passed on to the Taliban. Three, the army might be doing better, but the Afghan police force is still an unmediated disaster.
3) If Canada leaves, then Afghanistan risks again becoming home to Al Qaeda training bases. This is just silly. For starters, if Canada leaves, the US will still be there. For another 911 gave the US carte blanche to take out any Al Qaeada base in Afghanistan until the end of time. For Christ sakes, the US has no qualms about targeting Al Qaeda figures in Pakistan.
4) Canada being there makes us less likely to be attacked. Thank god we have moved beyond this little ditty. This talking point has always been the height of intellectual dishonsty To wit: When the would be Ontario bombers were arrested Andrew Coyne noted on the National that Al Qaeda had long listed Canada as a potential target, that no Western country is immune from attack, and that the arrests were yet further reason for pursuing a more muscular approach in Afghanistan. What Coyne failed to note however was that the would be bombers did not have any connection to Al Qaeda, according to the Crown the accused were motivated by the Afghan mission and the reason Al Qaeda has targeted Canada is because of our presence in Afghanistan. This is the Al Qaeda threat Coyne was referring to.
“What do your governments want from their alliance with America in attacking usin Afghanistan? I mention in particular Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germanyand Australia.”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/osamabinladen/tape.html
(Subsequently, Al Qaeda twice threatened Canada with terror acts because of Afghanistan. In one of those times, Al Qaeda’s second in command referred to Canada has “second rate crusaders”. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e9f20f44-ec19-470c-9ac3-6c79218d4d91 )
Only an ideologue would have the chutzpah to use Al Qaeda’s threat related to our presence in Afghanistan as proof that Al Qaeda will attack any western target, as if Switzerland and the US are equally likely targets, and that we should therefore step up operations in Afghanistan.
Of course, the threat the Afghan mission poises to Canada goes beyond the economics and loss of life. A terrorist attack, inspired by Canada 's presence in Afghanistan, might revitalize the Quebec’s separatist movement, especially if Quebec is the victim. Currently the Afghan mission is opposed by 70% of Quebecers. If Quebecers die as a result of us being there, the separatists will use it as a reason why Quebecers need their own country with its own foreign policy. Given what has transpired in Ontario, what happened in Spain and Britain, the chances of such an attack or not insignificant.
Finally, 20% of Canadians are born outside the country and Canada has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world. A terrorist attack has the potential to badly maul Canada's social fabric.
Friday, September 11, 2009
"You aint seen nothing yet"
The Liberals do not have answer for the strongly hinted at immigration reforms, they do not have answer to the Conservatives idiotic crime push, they do have answer to equally stupid senate reform and they not have answer to those Conservative ads. The party is completely devoid of ideas and scared of its own shadow. The party does not set the agenda; they only respond to the Conservative one. All we have seen from the Liberals, at least in English Canada, is that horrible ad.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Hockey Camp invites
Let me get this straight. Dan Hamhuis, Dan Cleary, and Marc Staal are good enough to get an invite to camp, but Jason Spezza, Marc Savard, Brain Campbell are not. This looks like 2006 all over again. That year Crosby, Spezza, E. Staal did not make the team as starters but Kris Draper did! One person that should have been left off the list and thankfully was, was Chris Osgood. He had a 887 save % last year. That was the lowest total of any starting goalie in the league. His backup Ty Conklin had a 909 save %.
There is no way that all three Staal brothers should have been invited. One look at Marc Staal's numbers tells the whole story. 3 goals 12 helpers and minus 7 do not gold medals make. As for Jordan, he did not even top 50 points last year and he is no selke candidate. Indeed, he was given the task of checking Ovechkin in the playoffs. Ovechkin finished the series with 8 goals and 6 helpers in 7 games.
Here is rough break down of who I would have as the final 25.
G: Mason, Brodeur, Luongo
D: Burns, Weber, Pronger, Niedermayer, Keith, Bouwmeester, Phaneuff, Green
F: Getzlaf (C), E. Staal (W), Nash (W), Thorton (C), Heatley (W), Crosby (C), LeCaviler (C), St. Louis (W), Doan (W), Ignalia (W) Carter (C), Richards (C) Marleau (W) Toews (W)
Move Carter and E. Staal to the wings. Staal moved to the rightwing to play with Getzlaf and Nash in the world Championships.
There is no way that all three Staal brothers should have been invited. One look at Marc Staal's numbers tells the whole story. 3 goals 12 helpers and minus 7 do not gold medals make. As for Jordan, he did not even top 50 points last year and he is no selke candidate. Indeed, he was given the task of checking Ovechkin in the playoffs. Ovechkin finished the series with 8 goals and 6 helpers in 7 games.
Here is rough break down of who I would have as the final 25.
G: Mason, Brodeur, Luongo
D: Burns, Weber, Pronger, Niedermayer, Keith, Bouwmeester, Phaneuff, Green
F: Getzlaf (C), E. Staal (W), Nash (W), Thorton (C), Heatley (W), Crosby (C), LeCaviler (C), St. Louis (W), Doan (W), Ignalia (W) Carter (C), Richards (C) Marleau (W) Toews (W)
Move Carter and E. Staal to the wings. Staal moved to the rightwing to play with Getzlaf and Nash in the world Championships.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Did Ahmadinejad kill Michael Jackson?
To say the least, it is depressing that the Major Networks have left the Iran story so that they could cover the Michael Jackson Story.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
6 Reasons why Mandatory Minimums for Drug Crimes are bad Idea
1) Imprisoning someone is hugely expensive and in terms of bang for your buck, by far and away the worst form of crime prevention.
2) Longer sentences do not deter junkies in anyway. The research on this is clear. The same goes for gang bangers. With regard to gang bangers, it is the likelihood of arrest and not the severity of punishment that deters them.
3) Conservatives are using a dragnet approach and this causes more harm then good. Mandatory minimums, especially for drug crimes, radically curtail social mobility and encourages social dislocation. With all the emphasis conservatives place on "family values", you would think that conservatives would realize having a critical mass of young fathers in lower income neighborhoods in jail does not do wonders for "family values". Once you get a critical mass of ex cons in area, the prospect of taking back that neighborhood from the gangs is virtually nil.
4) With all the focus the Conservatives have given to crime issues you would think that it is of foremost concern. However, crime is not a problem in Canada. The Conservatives --- and Liberals -- are promising to build a bridge when there is no body of water. Crime is down and becoming more concentrated among those on the margins of society. If one is not involved in the drug trade or prostitution, the chances of one being a victim of a violent crime are very slight indeed.
5) Locking up more and more gang members is no way to weaken the reach of gangs. The individuals might suffer but the organizations thrive. Indeed, plenty of gangs started as prison gangs (e.g., the Red Command and the PCC is Brazil and the Aryan Brotherhood in the US) and other gangs spread as result (e.g., the Crips and Bloods).
6) Yes drug related crime is going through the roof. However, cracking down on drugs, ,especially now, does more harm than good. There is near universal agreement on experts that mandatory minimums for drug related offensives do not reduce crime. A better approach would be to decriminalize the possession of all drugs a la what Portugal did, adopt heroin maintenance programs a la what the Swiss did and above all legalize marijuana. Marijuana is the seed capital for whole host of criminal activities. We need to nip this is the bud.
2) Longer sentences do not deter junkies in anyway. The research on this is clear. The same goes for gang bangers. With regard to gang bangers, it is the likelihood of arrest and not the severity of punishment that deters them.
3) Conservatives are using a dragnet approach and this causes more harm then good. Mandatory minimums, especially for drug crimes, radically curtail social mobility and encourages social dislocation. With all the emphasis conservatives place on "family values", you would think that conservatives would realize having a critical mass of young fathers in lower income neighborhoods in jail does not do wonders for "family values". Once you get a critical mass of ex cons in area, the prospect of taking back that neighborhood from the gangs is virtually nil.
4) With all the focus the Conservatives have given to crime issues you would think that it is of foremost concern. However, crime is not a problem in Canada. The Conservatives --- and Liberals -- are promising to build a bridge when there is no body of water. Crime is down and becoming more concentrated among those on the margins of society. If one is not involved in the drug trade or prostitution, the chances of one being a victim of a violent crime are very slight indeed.
5) Locking up more and more gang members is no way to weaken the reach of gangs. The individuals might suffer but the organizations thrive. Indeed, plenty of gangs started as prison gangs (e.g., the Red Command and the PCC is Brazil and the Aryan Brotherhood in the US) and other gangs spread as result (e.g., the Crips and Bloods).
6) Yes drug related crime is going through the roof. However, cracking down on drugs, ,especially now, does more harm than good. There is near universal agreement on experts that mandatory minimums for drug related offensives do not reduce crime. A better approach would be to decriminalize the possession of all drugs a la what Portugal did, adopt heroin maintenance programs a la what the Swiss did and above all legalize marijuana. Marijuana is the seed capital for whole host of criminal activities. We need to nip this is the bud.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
If Phil Fontaine, Why not Bernard Landry et al too?
"Wooed by federal political parties and corporate Canada, Assembly of First Nations national Chief Phil Fontaine is contemplating leaving the native organization, forgoing a run for a fourth term, a close friend says.
The federal Liberal and NDP parties have both asked Fontaine to run in the next federal election,"
http://www.calgaryherald.com/First+Nations+chief+considers+offers+from+corporate+world/1638152/story.html
In related news Liberals are courting, Bernard Landry, Lucien Bouchard, and Jacques Parizeau and using Jean Lapierre as a go between.
The federal Liberal and NDP parties have both asked Fontaine to run in the next federal election,"
http://www.calgaryherald.com/First+Nations+chief+considers+offers+from+corporate+world/1638152/story.html
In related news Liberals are courting, Bernard Landry, Lucien Bouchard, and Jacques Parizeau and using Jean Lapierre as a go between.
Liberals: Canada's Seinfeld Party
First the Liberals held a Seinfeld convention. Now with the demand for universal EI standard off the table the transformation is complete. The Liberals stand for nothing. They are Canada's Seinfeld Party. Indeed, the Liberals idea of universality these days is to pander to all groups in equal measure. The following are but a few examples. Quebec wanted to be recognized as a nation; presto it was so. When it came to equalization, the Maritimes wanted their oil revenues not to be counted and presto the Atlantic Accord was passed. One can only imagine if Alberta asked for the same. Canada's native community wanted the farm and and presto the provinces championed an accord, the Kelowna Accord, that the Liberal said the feds would fit the bill for.
As for Ignatieff, he claims he is Pearson Liberal, but he has proved time and again that he is willing to dress up in Conservative drag in order to attract the Tim Horton's crowd.
As for Ignatieff, he claims he is Pearson Liberal, but he has proved time and again that he is willing to dress up in Conservative drag in order to attract the Tim Horton's crowd.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Are the Liberals worth supporting?
Lost in all the excitement about the Liberals moving up in the polls are questions about the Liberal party itself. Are the Liberals worth supporting? These days it seems to me that the only redeeming feature about the Liberals are that they are not Conservatives.
Liberals pandering to the Social Cons
http://www.nationalpost.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=1650066
Talk of the social gospel and Tommy Douglas is simply an attempt to put lipstick on a pig. The Liberals are pandering to social cons, plain and simple. If it was the social gospel crowd the Liberals were going for, they would made Rob Oliphant their point man instead of appointing some evangelical fruitcake.
Talk of the social gospel and Tommy Douglas is simply an attempt to put lipstick on a pig. The Liberals are pandering to social cons, plain and simple. If it was the social gospel crowd the Liberals were going for, they would made Rob Oliphant their point man instead of appointing some evangelical fruitcake.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Bill 15: Liberal position intellectually bankrupt and Politically Stupid
The last 5 polls that I have seen on the subject show that a majority of Canada’s support marijuana legalization and by a fairly large margin. More to the point it is something that is particularly popular with the Liberal base. According a 2007 poll, for which the complete breakdown is available, support is 55-41 nationally and is favoured by Liberal supporters 68-29 and by NDP supporters 71 -27.
http://angusreidstrategies.com/uploads/pages/pdfs/2007.06.27%20Drugs%20Press%20Release.pdf
The way to drum up grassroots support is not pass policies that they are firmly against and then ask them to donate money.
As to the political calculation involved here, it is not one that is going to work for the Liberals. The political advantage the Conservatives get from this is not from their being major differences between the major parties, but from the tone of debate generally. So long as the only option is get tough on crime or stay the course, the Conservatives are going to win the issue. They are the ones that started the discussion and they are always going to be the ones deemed toughest on crime. The only way the crime issue turns around for the Liberals is if they offer an alternative vision. Now I now that I have beaten this issue to death, but if the Liberals were to propose to legalize marijuana, they would catch the Conservatives flat footed.
The Liberals really need to take a stand. They can not continue to straddle both sides of political divide. When it comes to marijuana for example their position on possession has been pretty lax since Chretein quipped that he would have a joint in one hand and the money for his fine in other. At the same time, they have been ever more supportive of tougher penalties for drug trafficking . To say that such stances are mutually inconsistent would be an understatement. How can consuming a joint be no worse than speeding and something virtually every Liberal leader can laugh about but passing one worthy of a year in jail?
Early this week John Reynolds came out in support heroin maintance. On Sunday Ignatieff gives a talk in West Vancouver, Reynolds old riding. The fact even the provincie's most preeminent Conservative is light years ahead of where the Liberals just goes to show how out of touch Liberal position is with movers and shakers in Vancouver.
http://angusreidstrategies.com/uploads/pages/pdfs/2007.06.27%20Drugs%20Press%20Release.pdf
The way to drum up grassroots support is not pass policies that they are firmly against and then ask them to donate money.
As to the political calculation involved here, it is not one that is going to work for the Liberals. The political advantage the Conservatives get from this is not from their being major differences between the major parties, but from the tone of debate generally. So long as the only option is get tough on crime or stay the course, the Conservatives are going to win the issue. They are the ones that started the discussion and they are always going to be the ones deemed toughest on crime. The only way the crime issue turns around for the Liberals is if they offer an alternative vision. Now I now that I have beaten this issue to death, but if the Liberals were to propose to legalize marijuana, they would catch the Conservatives flat footed.
The Liberals really need to take a stand. They can not continue to straddle both sides of political divide. When it comes to marijuana for example their position on possession has been pretty lax since Chretein quipped that he would have a joint in one hand and the money for his fine in other. At the same time, they have been ever more supportive of tougher penalties for drug trafficking . To say that such stances are mutually inconsistent would be an understatement. How can consuming a joint be no worse than speeding and something virtually every Liberal leader can laugh about but passing one worthy of a year in jail?
Early this week John Reynolds came out in support heroin maintance. On Sunday Ignatieff gives a talk in West Vancouver, Reynolds old riding. The fact even the provincie's most preeminent Conservative is light years ahead of where the Liberals just goes to show how out of touch Liberal position is with movers and shakers in Vancouver.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Liberals lack all Credibility when it Comes to Crime
Even after expert witness after expert witness after witness blasted the Tory mandatory minimum for drug trafficking, the Liberals says are going to pass the bill. http://www.canada.com/Drug+sentence+bill+soon/1661761/story.html This proves once again when it comes to crime issues the Liberals lack all credibility. The Liberal Party is not a party that one can trust make competent decisions, to make decisions based on the best available evidence and not to pander to segments of the public. On a whole range of isssues the Liberals are no better than the Conservatives.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Time To Put a Stop to Unskilled Guest Workers in Canada
The number of guest workers allowed in has exploded since the Conservatives came to power and whereas the typical guest worker was once an American transferred to a branch office in Canada, the fastest growing category of guest worker is now the unskilled type with poor language skills. The Conservatives have not done this directly. They have turned over a greater percentage of the immigration file to the provinces and Western provinces in particular have used the program to undercut labour. The Canadian tax payer has paid through the noise to have cheap labour sent in from other countries for the sole purpose of cutting wages of the Canadian tax payer.
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/640224
Forget Conservative talk about such provincial programs bringing in much needed skilled workers, this was the kind of positions Alberta was hoping to fill through its guest worker programs this summer: Front desk clerk, short order cook, baker, maid, assembly line worker, server, buser, bellhop, valet, and cafeteria worker, laundry attendant, pet groomer, general labourer, and hair dresser. All that is required of such would be immigrants is that they score 4 or 24 on the language assessment. In other words, they can still be functionally illiterate and still get it in.
It takes a great deal of chutzpah to Kenney to talk about wanting to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and then go about encouraging the very thing that led to the creation of these communities in Europe, viz., importing gobs of unskilled guest labour. Canada is lucky in so far as most Canadians see new immigrants as one of us. The Conservative policy will change this though. If the situation is allowed to continue, an increasing number of Canadians will see new immigrants, and most people are not going to make the distinction between guest worker and permanent resident, as someone brought in by employers to undercut wages.
The number of unskilled workers Canada lets in should be 0.
"According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, there were 57,843 temporary foreign workers in Alberta by the end of 2008, a 55 per cent jump from 2007 and more than four times the number residing here five years ago. By contrast, permanent immigration has been relatively stagnant, with fewer than 25,000 immigrants coming to Alberta last year from outside the country, only a few thousand people higher than in 2004.
Alberta is not the only the province to import workers. In raw numbers, Ontario has the highest number at 91,733. B.C. has about the same number as Alberta. Quebec has many fewer at only 26,085."
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/640224
Forget Conservative talk about such provincial programs bringing in much needed skilled workers, this was the kind of positions Alberta was hoping to fill through its guest worker programs this summer: Front desk clerk, short order cook, baker, maid, assembly line worker, server, buser, bellhop, valet, and cafeteria worker, laundry attendant, pet groomer, general labourer, and hair dresser. All that is required of such would be immigrants is that they score 4 or 24 on the language assessment. In other words, they can still be functionally illiterate and still get it in.
It takes a great deal of chutzpah to Kenney to talk about wanting to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and then go about encouraging the very thing that led to the creation of these communities in Europe, viz., importing gobs of unskilled guest labour. Canada is lucky in so far as most Canadians see new immigrants as one of us. The Conservative policy will change this though. If the situation is allowed to continue, an increasing number of Canadians will see new immigrants, and most people are not going to make the distinction between guest worker and permanent resident, as someone brought in by employers to undercut wages.
The number of unskilled workers Canada lets in should be 0.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Conservative Ads: Some Thoughts
Yes the Conservatives were able to pass off Dion as a wimp, but given his slouch, his accent and at times his high pitched voice Dion was easy pickings.
The Conservative ads attacking Ignatieff are a conceptual mess. It is hard to nail down just what the Conservatives are after. Ads that leave people confused will not work.
Worse, the most damaging bit is Ignatieff referring to himself as American and the Conservatives can not run far in this direction without these quotes coming up.
1) Stephen Harper: “Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous.”
2) Stephen Harper "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"
3) Stephen Harper: “Canada is a Northern Welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it.”
4) Stephen Harper: “I delivered [speeches] everywhere I went … about the spirit of defeatism in the country”
5) Stephen Harper: “west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettos and who are not integrated into western Canadian society.”
At least the Conservatives had the good sense not to bring up Ignatieff's support for the Iraq war --- because the rejoiner to that is pretty obvious.
If the NDP had half a brain, they will run ads in the next election juxtaposing Ignatieff's pronoun problem with Harper's serial Canada bashing and pronounce themselves the alternative.
The Conservative ads attacking Ignatieff are a conceptual mess. It is hard to nail down just what the Conservatives are after. Ads that leave people confused will not work.
Worse, the most damaging bit is Ignatieff referring to himself as American and the Conservatives can not run far in this direction without these quotes coming up.
1) Stephen Harper: “Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous.”
2) Stephen Harper "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"
3) Stephen Harper: “Canada is a Northern Welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it.”
4) Stephen Harper: “I delivered [speeches] everywhere I went … about the spirit of defeatism in the country”
5) Stephen Harper: “west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettos and who are not integrated into western Canadian society.”
At least the Conservatives had the good sense not to bring up Ignatieff's support for the Iraq war --- because the rejoiner to that is pretty obvious.
If the NDP had half a brain, they will run ads in the next election juxtaposing Ignatieff's pronoun problem with Harper's serial Canada bashing and pronounce themselves the alternative.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Stephen Harper: Long Record of Standing up for Canada
1) Stephen Harper: “Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous.”
2) "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"
3) Stephen Harper: “Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion."
4) Stephen Harper: “Canada is a Northern Welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it.”
5) Stephen Harper: “I delivered [speeches] everywhere I went … about the spirit of defeatism in the country” National Post, May 31 2002
6) Stephen Harper: “west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society.”
2) "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"
3) Stephen Harper: “Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion."
4) Stephen Harper: “Canada is a Northern Welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it.”
5) Stephen Harper: “I delivered [speeches] everywhere I went … about the spirit of defeatism in the country” National Post, May 31 2002
6) Stephen Harper: “west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society.”
Thursday, May 07, 2009
My Strange Encouter was a Fashion Fascist
On Sunday I rented a tuxedo. I am going to wedding. A woman was doing the fitting for me. She first gave me a 48 jacket. It was snug in the shoulders and so she gave me a 50 to try on. This did fit in shoulders. However, the 48 was much too big in the waist and 50 was just ridiculous. The head cheese was watching all of this and I could tell he was not pleased. He said I really needed to try on a 46 or smaller. I told him the 48 was snug, but he was persistent. So I tried on a 46 to appease him. Remember I am the one renting the tuxedo. Anyway, the thing was as tight as wet suit. The woman that was helping me earlier was trying to see if there was any slake in the arms. There was not any. It fit like a muscle shirt. The guy said "this is better". I decided then that enough was enough. I said no it not better. I can not move. I did not want to be in the same position as the bride, viz, having to have someone assist me just so could get in and out of my jacket. So we compromised on the 48, but only after I acknowledged in, get this, writing that 48 was too big in the waist. He was similarly displeased with the shirt. It was roomy to say the least, but by this time his assistant was tried of being treated like she did not have a clue and said in response to his queries about a smaller size that "nothing else fit him in the neck. The top button would not do up." That shut him up.
All and all it was strangest retail experience I have ever had. Now, note to any Tuxedo makers who might be reading this. In defense of the fashion fascist, not every guy wearing a larger jacket size is big in the waist. Indeed, considering that majority of guys who rent these things are probably no older than their early 30s, I would say they might actually be in the majority. A moo moo is not a good look.
All and all it was strangest retail experience I have ever had. Now, note to any Tuxedo makers who might be reading this. In defense of the fashion fascist, not every guy wearing a larger jacket size is big in the waist. Indeed, considering that majority of guys who rent these things are probably no older than their early 30s, I would say they might actually be in the majority. A moo moo is not a good look.
Wayne Easter on the Gun Registry
Wayne Easter:
"a number of factors really. One of the big ones, which was a catalyst to us losing a lot of constituencies in rural Canda, was actually the gun control bill, the long-gun registry.
"It just seemed to be a catalyst that provoked a reaction that the Liberals didn't identify with rural Canadians."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/politicalbytes/2009/05/rethinking_the_gun_registry.html
I would like to now just what seats he is talking about and why he talking about a long-gun registry when there is but one gun registry.
The evidence that the gun registry hurt the Liberals is just not there. First of all West of Ontario there were no safe rural Liberal seats to loose.
The Liberals were shut out in Alberta in 1972, 1974, 1979, 1980, 1984, 1988. As for those seats that went Liberal in 1993, 1997, 2000 and 2004, they were not rural seats --- they were in Edmonton -- nor where they safe. “Landslide” Anne McLellan was good case in point.
The situation in Saskatchewan was similar. The Liberals were shut out there in 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1988. As for seats the Liberals won there in 1993, 1997, 2000, 2004, 2006 and 2008, there has proven to be but one safe seat and Ralph Goodale still holds it. Moreover, the Wascana is not a rural seat.
The situation is not nearly as bleak for the Liberals in Manitoba. However, the Liberals took only one rural seat in 1993, and 1997 and Provencher (MP Vic Toews) could never be described as a safe Liberal seat. It was not a Liberal stronghold prior to 1993 and the Liberals owed their success there more to a spilt in the conservative vote than anything else. Combined the PC and Reform was much greater than Liberals in both 1993 and 1997 elections.
The Liberal popular support in Manitoba is concentrated in Winnipeg. Going back all the way to world war two you can on one hand the number of seats the Liberals have won outside of Winnipeg Edmonton, and Ralph Goodale’s seat in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
The Liberals faired just as poorly in rural BC during this time, but again Liberal troubles in rural BC long predated the gun registry. The Liberals won but 1 seat in 1979, 1984 and 1988 and were shut out in 1980.
As for Ontario, the Liberals share of the popular vote and seats was stable between 1993 and 2000 and when the Liberal vote did drop significantly in 2004, it was not to the Conservatives’ benefit when it came to the popular vote. Indeed, the combined PC and Reform vote in each of the three subsequent elections was 37%. In 2004 the Conservatives took only 31% of popular vote. If I am not mistaken, this represents the lowest share of the popular vote by a united Conservative party ever. Even in 2006 the Conservative share of the province’s popular vote was below the combined right wing vote between 1993 and 2000. Moving from the Liberals to the NDP is a strange way to protest your displeasure with the gun registry and that is what happened in Ontario in 2004.
Only in the Martimes is the notion that the gun registry hurt the Liberals consistent with record. However, three things should be noted in this regard. 1) The Liberals have faired very well in Maritimes during this time. 2) The Conservatives have not gained that much. In 2004 the Conservative vote totals were below the combined vote totals for the two right parties in every election since Mulroney and that includes 1993. 3) The unpopularity of EI reforms hurt the Liberals in the 1997.
Results in seat rich Quebec are consistent with gun registry helping in Quebec.
Now, what is implicit in what Easter is saying is that somehow there is gains to be made in rural Canada and that somehow the Liberals have maxed out in major cities. This is simply not true. Looking strictly at the numbers, it is easy to see that all the low hanging fruit for the Liberals is suburban Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. The gun registry is winner in these seats.
"a number of factors really. One of the big ones, which was a catalyst to us losing a lot of constituencies in rural Canda, was actually the gun control bill, the long-gun registry.
"It just seemed to be a catalyst that provoked a reaction that the Liberals didn't identify with rural Canadians."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/politicalbytes/2009/05/rethinking_the_gun_registry.html
I would like to now just what seats he is talking about and why he talking about a long-gun registry when there is but one gun registry.
The evidence that the gun registry hurt the Liberals is just not there. First of all West of Ontario there were no safe rural Liberal seats to loose.
The Liberals were shut out in Alberta in 1972, 1974, 1979, 1980, 1984, 1988. As for those seats that went Liberal in 1993, 1997, 2000 and 2004, they were not rural seats --- they were in Edmonton -- nor where they safe. “Landslide” Anne McLellan was good case in point.
The situation in Saskatchewan was similar. The Liberals were shut out there in 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1988. As for seats the Liberals won there in 1993, 1997, 2000, 2004, 2006 and 2008, there has proven to be but one safe seat and Ralph Goodale still holds it. Moreover, the Wascana is not a rural seat.
The situation is not nearly as bleak for the Liberals in Manitoba. However, the Liberals took only one rural seat in 1993, and 1997 and Provencher (MP Vic Toews) could never be described as a safe Liberal seat. It was not a Liberal stronghold prior to 1993 and the Liberals owed their success there more to a spilt in the conservative vote than anything else. Combined the PC and Reform was much greater than Liberals in both 1993 and 1997 elections.
The Liberal popular support in Manitoba is concentrated in Winnipeg. Going back all the way to world war two you can on one hand the number of seats the Liberals have won outside of Winnipeg Edmonton, and Ralph Goodale’s seat in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
The Liberals faired just as poorly in rural BC during this time, but again Liberal troubles in rural BC long predated the gun registry. The Liberals won but 1 seat in 1979, 1984 and 1988 and were shut out in 1980.
As for Ontario, the Liberals share of the popular vote and seats was stable between 1993 and 2000 and when the Liberal vote did drop significantly in 2004, it was not to the Conservatives’ benefit when it came to the popular vote. Indeed, the combined PC and Reform vote in each of the three subsequent elections was 37%. In 2004 the Conservatives took only 31% of popular vote. If I am not mistaken, this represents the lowest share of the popular vote by a united Conservative party ever. Even in 2006 the Conservative share of the province’s popular vote was below the combined right wing vote between 1993 and 2000. Moving from the Liberals to the NDP is a strange way to protest your displeasure with the gun registry and that is what happened in Ontario in 2004.
Only in the Martimes is the notion that the gun registry hurt the Liberals consistent with record. However, three things should be noted in this regard. 1) The Liberals have faired very well in Maritimes during this time. 2) The Conservatives have not gained that much. In 2004 the Conservative vote totals were below the combined vote totals for the two right parties in every election since Mulroney and that includes 1993. 3) The unpopularity of EI reforms hurt the Liberals in the 1997.
Results in seat rich Quebec are consistent with gun registry helping in Quebec.
Now, what is implicit in what Easter is saying is that somehow there is gains to be made in rural Canada and that somehow the Liberals have maxed out in major cities. This is simply not true. Looking strictly at the numbers, it is easy to see that all the low hanging fruit for the Liberals is suburban Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. The gun registry is winner in these seats.
Monday, May 04, 2009
The Idiocy of weighting OMOV: Part 2
Giving 5 % of the Liberal party supporters the same if not more power than the other 95% is not going to make the Liberals popular in regions where they have never been popular. Saying that by having to appeal to the small group of Crowfoot Liberals, for example, the Liberals will become more acceptable to people of Crowfoot is strange reasoning indeed. I think it is safe to say that Crowfoot Liberals are not represenative. Furthermore, it is going to alienate its base of supporters and that is far bigger issue than branching out into Liberal no man's land. If the Liberals are ever going to match the Conservatives in terms of fund rising, telling, say, the legions of Liberals in Toronto proper ridings that they matter less in a leadership race than Liberals in a province, Alberta, that has never voted Liberal is not going to help. Weighting the vote will also lead to strange calcus when it comes to leadership campaigns. Indeed, why do all the leg work of signing up hundreds of new members in various Toronto ridings to help swing the vote their when signing up a few more members in Crowfoot will accomplish the same?
The Idiocy of weighting OMOV
Save for the passing of WOMOV, the Seinfeld convention lived up to its name. Not much of substance was said or accomplished. Still it was a lot of fun.
As for WOMOV, I am a strong backer of OMOV. However I hate the weighted portion. The hinterlands are already grossly over represented in the House of Commons and Canada's major cities in particular get screwed. The Liberals apparently decided that a mountain of salt needed to be poured on this wound. It is grossly undemocratic to give, for example, Crow Foot Liberals the same voting clout as Vaughn Liberals, but alas when it comes to the party base reward your detractors and punish your supporters is the Liberal way. In the upside down world of Liberal insider politics, Alberta Liberals have more clout than Liberals in Toronto proper. Ignatieff must be starting to believe his own rhetoric about rural Canada.
As for WOMOV, I am a strong backer of OMOV. However I hate the weighted portion. The hinterlands are already grossly over represented in the House of Commons and Canada's major cities in particular get screwed. The Liberals apparently decided that a mountain of salt needed to be poured on this wound. It is grossly undemocratic to give, for example, Crow Foot Liberals the same voting clout as Vaughn Liberals, but alas when it comes to the party base reward your detractors and punish your supporters is the Liberal way. In the upside down world of Liberal insider politics, Alberta Liberals have more clout than Liberals in Toronto proper. Ignatieff must be starting to believe his own rhetoric about rural Canada.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Some Convention Notes
My desire to say something controversial rises in direct portion to level of mushy feel good group think there is a room. By the end of Social Justice: Social Policy and Multiculturalism Policy forum I was doing all I could to contain myself. With the exception of Ruby Dhalla, the problem was not the panelists per say, but the unwillingness of those asking the questions to move beyond boiler plate and the mundane. One delegate especially irked me. He said that he was tried of the Liberals taking women and people of colour for granted. This a common refrain, but it is unfair.
Nowhere is there more foreign born Canadians than Toronto and nowhere have the Liberals been more successful than in Toronto. One of the reasons that the Liberals GTA MPs are not as diverse as the Toronto population is that the population there has changed faster than its MPs have. A better measure of how responsive the Liberals have been is how representative the new blood is and it is representive. Furthermore, judging by the composition of today's young Liberals, future Liberal mps will be a diverse lot. Yes I know a huge percentage of young Liberals are policy sci majors who have plans to go to law school, but ethnically and racially they are a diverse lot.
As for women, fear not. A sea change is coming. If you look at income distribution men still earn more than women. However, if one breaks it down by age group, there is no difference between young women and young men. Moreover, women are surging ahead of males in every level of education. Pick a high status profession (e.g., lawyers, doctors) and there are more women coming into the field than men. For that reason a alone there should be higher percentage of women mps. After all, these are the types of careers that help solidify nominations. Just an aside high levels of education are positively correlated with higher levels of income. What has until recently kept young males at an even keel was commodity and construction related industries. With the downturn in those kinds of industries, young males have been hit disportionately hard and I would not be surprised to see that young males have fallen behind young females.
As for affirmative action generally, it is pure poison, but I will save that subject for another day. What I want to add is that as a means of leveling the economic playing field it is not very effective when it comes to minorities and often represents just a token effort and a distraction. Affirmative action is no substitute for universal health care, better funded schools, affordable post secondary education,and that is what African Americans were given in the wake of gaining their civil rights. Slavery and Jim Crow had condemned them to poverty and the lack of social safety net and the war on drugs help keep them there. There is no better way of impeding social mobility than a criminal record.
Nowhere is there more foreign born Canadians than Toronto and nowhere have the Liberals been more successful than in Toronto. One of the reasons that the Liberals GTA MPs are not as diverse as the Toronto population is that the population there has changed faster than its MPs have. A better measure of how responsive the Liberals have been is how representative the new blood is and it is representive. Furthermore, judging by the composition of today's young Liberals, future Liberal mps will be a diverse lot. Yes I know a huge percentage of young Liberals are policy sci majors who have plans to go to law school, but ethnically and racially they are a diverse lot.
As for women, fear not. A sea change is coming. If you look at income distribution men still earn more than women. However, if one breaks it down by age group, there is no difference between young women and young men. Moreover, women are surging ahead of males in every level of education. Pick a high status profession (e.g., lawyers, doctors) and there are more women coming into the field than men. For that reason a alone there should be higher percentage of women mps. After all, these are the types of careers that help solidify nominations. Just an aside high levels of education are positively correlated with higher levels of income. What has until recently kept young males at an even keel was commodity and construction related industries. With the downturn in those kinds of industries, young males have been hit disportionately hard and I would not be surprised to see that young males have fallen behind young females.
As for affirmative action generally, it is pure poison, but I will save that subject for another day. What I want to add is that as a means of leveling the economic playing field it is not very effective when it comes to minorities and often represents just a token effort and a distraction. Affirmative action is no substitute for universal health care, better funded schools, affordable post secondary education,and that is what African Americans were given in the wake of gaining their civil rights. Slavery and Jim Crow had condemned them to poverty and the lack of social safety net and the war on drugs help keep them there. There is no better way of impeding social mobility than a criminal record.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Liberals to Delegates: Suckers
The Liberal party has gone out of its way to insure there will be polite Q and A discussions about “priority” policies. These discussions will, of course, lead nowhere and the only newsworthy thing to come out of convention is that it was indeed as boring and pointless as everyone says it was going to be. At least in the past the party did not control what motions were tabled and there were motions about hot button issues that drew the media's attention.
So the question I want to ask delegates is something Johnny Rotten once mused about.
"Do you ever feel like you've been cheated?"
So the question I want to ask delegates is something Johnny Rotten once mused about.
"Do you ever feel like you've been cheated?"
Jason Kenney Playing the Conservative base for Suckers
Jason Kenney
Let there be no mistake about what the Conservatives are doing.
The number of guest workers allowed in has exploded since the Conservatives came to power and whereas the typical guest worker was once an American transferred to a branch office in Canada, the fastest growing category of guest worker is now the unskilled type with poor language skills. The Conservatives have not done this directly. They have turned over a greater percentage of the immigration file to the provinces and Western provinces in particular have used the program to undercut labour. The Canadian tax payer has paid through the noise to have cheap labour sent in from other countries for the sole purpose of cutting wages of the Canadian tax payer. Forget Conservative talk about such provincial programs bringing in much needed skilled workers, this was the kind of positions Alberta was hoping to fill through its guest worker programs this summer: Front desk clerk, short order cook, baker, maid, assembly line worker, server, buser, bellhop, valet, and cafeteria worker, laundry attendant, pet groomer, general labourer, and hair dresser. All that is required of such would be immigrants is that they score 4 or 24 on the language assessment. In other words, they can still be functionally illiterate and still get it in.
It takes a great deal of chutzpah to Kenney to talk about wanting to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and then go about encouraging the very thing that led to the creation of these communities in Europe, viz., importing gobs of unskilled guest labour.
Jason Kenney
This is just a lot of hot air designed to play to a Conservative base that does not read a lot and so does not know when it is being pandered too. The National Post Chris Selley nailed it. http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=1431668
Selley also alluded to the elephant in Kenney living room. Namely, the biggest hurdle to reforming the refugee system is insuring that refugees are processed quickly, that they cannot delay deportation with endless appeals and that there is mechanisms in place to insure they leave the country when they are ordered out. Regardless of the merits of their case, the longer refugees remain in country the greater the likelihood that they will stay. Under the Conservatives things have gotten worse much worse. It now takes a refugee claimant a year and half to 2 years to get a hearing. Under the Liberals that number was one year. The problem is that the Conservatives have failed to fill vacancies on the immigration and refugee board at a time when more claims were pouring in than ever. If Kenney was truly serious about reforming the system he would see to it that such hearings happen in a manner of months, limit or eliminate appeals and ensure that there is a system set up to sure that failed claimants have left the country. However I would not hold my breath. The Conservatives flatly refuse to do the one thing that is not the least bit politically controversial and that would arguably help speed up the process the most. That is, they have ruled out increasing the size of the board to insure that refugees are processed faster.
"There continue to be acute labour market shortages in certain businesses, certain industries and certain regions. And our government believes that the worst thing we could do during this time of economic difficulty is to starve those employers, who are growing, of the labour that they need fuel their prosperity in these difficult times."
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/04/15/cgy-mexicans-kenney-immigration.html
Let there be no mistake about what the Conservatives are doing.
The number of guest workers allowed in has exploded since the Conservatives came to power and whereas the typical guest worker was once an American transferred to a branch office in Canada, the fastest growing category of guest worker is now the unskilled type with poor language skills. The Conservatives have not done this directly. They have turned over a greater percentage of the immigration file to the provinces and Western provinces in particular have used the program to undercut labour. The Canadian tax payer has paid through the noise to have cheap labour sent in from other countries for the sole purpose of cutting wages of the Canadian tax payer. Forget Conservative talk about such provincial programs bringing in much needed skilled workers, this was the kind of positions Alberta was hoping to fill through its guest worker programs this summer: Front desk clerk, short order cook, baker, maid, assembly line worker, server, buser, bellhop, valet, and cafeteria worker, laundry attendant, pet groomer, general labourer, and hair dresser. All that is required of such would be immigrants is that they score 4 or 24 on the language assessment. In other words, they can still be functionally illiterate and still get it in.
It takes a great deal of chutzpah to Kenney to talk about wanting to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and then go about encouraging the very thing that led to the creation of these communities in Europe, viz., importing gobs of unskilled guest labour.
Jason Kenney
"That would indicate to me that the vast majority — something like 90 per cent of these claimants — are actually trying to immigrate to Canada through the back door of the refugee system and I think that's unacceptable. That's basically queue jumping."
This is just a lot of hot air designed to play to a Conservative base that does not read a lot and so does not know when it is being pandered too. The National Post Chris Selley nailed it. http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=1431668
I can't say I'm totally sure what he's talking about. As designed, the system is pretty much incapable of being abused or violated. Its guiding principle is: get your feet on Canadian soil and you can claim refugee status-period, no exceptions. Forget not-so-badly-off Mexicans and Colombians. If George Galloway had been allowed into Canada, he could have claimed asylum. Britney Spears could have thrown herself on our mercy after her show in Montreal last week. President Barack Obama, during his visit to Ottawa. Alexander Ovechkin, when he played in Toronto on Tuesday. Anyone, no matter their means, where they came from or how they got here, can claim refugee status in Canada, and they can pretty safely count on being here long enough to make the threat of eventual deportation worthwhile. If nothing else, any children born while they're here would automatically be Canadian citizens. That's a lot of reward for not much risk.
Selley also alluded to the elephant in Kenney living room. Namely, the biggest hurdle to reforming the refugee system is insuring that refugees are processed quickly, that they cannot delay deportation with endless appeals and that there is mechanisms in place to insure they leave the country when they are ordered out. Regardless of the merits of their case, the longer refugees remain in country the greater the likelihood that they will stay. Under the Conservatives things have gotten worse much worse. It now takes a refugee claimant a year and half to 2 years to get a hearing. Under the Liberals that number was one year. The problem is that the Conservatives have failed to fill vacancies on the immigration and refugee board at a time when more claims were pouring in than ever. If Kenney was truly serious about reforming the system he would see to it that such hearings happen in a manner of months, limit or eliminate appeals and ensure that there is a system set up to sure that failed claimants have left the country. However I would not hold my breath. The Conservatives flatly refuse to do the one thing that is not the least bit politically controversial and that would arguably help speed up the process the most. That is, they have ruled out increasing the size of the board to insure that refugees are processed faster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
