Two interesting clips were thrown into the podcast recently
John Tory in the CFRA studio (mp3), and
Lisa MacLeod discussing the Human Rights Commission (mp3)
I’ve read some parliamentary debates on the fixed election legislation posted online recently and I think the rhetoric does tell the story. The Tories didn’t have in mind the possibility of a PM seeking the dissolution of his own minority government, and now seem to be trying to justify this action in order to force an election and put Dion out of his misery.
I guess it was good while it lasted. Will this change any votes? I doubt it will matter to anybody but the blogosphere, really, and most of us are already locked into our votes.
Barring any unexpected events in the expected campaign, here’s a glimpse at the disaster that’s about to hit the Liberal Party, buried at the very end of this story called Liberal MPs Seek Changes To Green Shift Plan:
Some veteran Liberals disagree, especially when it comes to Quebec where some Liberals remain furious with Mr. Dion’s Quebec lieutenant, Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette. They blame her for failing to find candidates for half the ridings in the province while blocking potentially strong candidates, such as former MPs Liza Frulla and Helene Scherrer.
That, in Quebec, is in addition to the concerns that Liberal MPs are hearing from Canadians in every corner of Canada, as described in detail in the linked article.
If the Liberals are going to end up making some changes to their carbon tax platform, they should definitely look into changing the name of it and stop hurting Jennifer Wright’s ten year old business of the same name.
When I relocated to Toronto earlier this summer, I was leaving a city lead by an embattled mayor to come to a city lead by an incompetent one. When David Miller brought forth a shiny new tax in October, he justified it by stating that it was required in order to provide the “kind of city that Torontonians want”.
 |
|
David Miller and 16 colleagues are taking a vacation on taxpayers money at a cost of over $40,000 to you!
|
Taxpayers grudgingly were forced to accept the new tax, under the impression that the city was cash strapped and in desperate need of finances to support essential services.
Turns out the city isn’t nearly as hard up for cash as we were led to believe. It seems that the powers that be down at city hall were able to find $41,854 to send 17 people, Mayor Miller included, to Quebec City to participate in the 400th anniversary festivities going on.
David, I could sure use a vacation too, after having Canada’s largest propane explosion occur mere blocks away from my doorstep and becoming a victim of debit fraud within a span of 2 weeks. How about you guys fork out another few thousand so I can relax - surely the stress that drove you to require said vacation cannot top the stress that Downsview residents are feeling after experiencing that massive explosion.
“It was an essential decision if we want to do our part in creating the kind of city that Torontonians want by preserving the services that people need.”
– David Miller, Oct. 22, 2007, after council approved new taxes
Essential, indeed.
..cannot be justified by partisanship.
…unless of course, I do.”
Too often lately I haven’t had much time to follow things as closely as I used to. It seems I missed a real gem, though. Not only is Stephane Dion a different man depending on his audience, he apparently feels that good old Catholic vote is in the bag.
…He was, for example, anxious to “reconcile people with God’s environment” and was committed to the planet “given to us by God.” Which is somewhat surprising. The deity is not a popular debating point for Liberal leaders. Actually, the Supreme Being is mentioned by ambitious Liberal politicians about as often as Brian Mulroney’s good points. So I was rude enough to ask Mr. Dion if he was doing this — sounding religious — because he had been told that the station on which my show appears each night, CTS, was faith-based. Frankly, I expected him to deny, obfuscate or simply lie. It says a great deal about the man’s integrity as well as his innocence that he replied on air with a simple, “This is true.” A pause, then, “I have been told that this is important to the people who watch this show…”
And that one constituency that the Liberals never have to work for?
…After the show, Dion asked about the denominational breakdown of those of our viewers who are Christian. “You see, the Catholics can be relied on to vote Liberal, always, but the Protestants much less so ,” he explained. “It’s very difficult to get them to vote for us. I am a Catholic.” As were Trudeau, Chretien and Martin. Men who championed abortion, same-sex marriage and many other policies that ran counter to basic Catholic teachings. In other words, they were Catholic by birth but Liberal by belief and works…
Quite telling, Steffie. Quite telling.
Full article: Stephane Dion Finds God
I was definitely in favour of this now aborted legislation, and am receptive of the compromise legislation that the Conservatives have promised to introduce in place of this one.
It should be pretty obvious to anybody why this was done.
As Tom Flanagan takes pains to point out in Harper’s Team, the abortion card was played in the final week of each of the past two elections. First, it cost Stephen Harper all of his momentum in the summer of 2004 when Paul Martin brought it up as the leader of the newly minted Conservative Party curiously spent the final week of the campaign on somewhat of a holiday. It happened again in 2006, when Martin again invoked the spectre of Harper completely banning abortion, and possibly putting soldiers with guns in our streets to ensure none are performed. This resulted in an immediate drop of several points, a couple of which were recovered as a result of the backfired soldier ad, but still likely costing Harper a majority government. To save the country from a massive tax hike should Stephane Dion form government by fluke on the abortion issue, Stephen Harper needed to take it completely off the table.
Frankly, I have too many things going on in my life to worry what anyone’s position on abortion is. Regardless of where you stand, it should be pretty obvious to everybody - this government is not going to pass any legislation with regards to abortion. The political will is not currently there in either the public nor the politicians at this point in time.
Harper is making a promise that will be easy to keep, unlike promising a “revenue neutral” carbon tax that supposedly* won’t cost you anything, and is displaying great strategic insight in doing so. The Prime Minister is attempting to undemonize conservatism in Canada by fighting the stigma that Liberals have been able to cast on the right wing so successfully for so long. In the best interest of the long game, and I do mean over several decades, Stephen Harper is working to instill conservatism after a century of liberalism once again as the leading brand in Canada.
That is why I asked in this thread, and to the feigned outrage of one hyper partisan Liberal commenter, do the Liberals think voters are stupid?
Because the more desperate they become, and the stranger their tactics get, the more convinced I become that they do believe so.
* And, if you believe Dion’s bit about “revenue neutral”, you probably are stupid.
I’ll admit I raised an eyebrow when I read that the Tories may be thinking of initiating an election before the now infamous October 2009 date. It seemed to me that doing so would be going against the fixed election date law that had been passed very early on in their mandate. However, I’ve since realized something. This is a minority government, and the constitution provides ways for a minority government to fall. The fixed election date legislation was designed to prohibit a Prime Minister who has been given a full, majority mandate from voters from going to the polls early or later when it is politically opportune, ala Jean Chretien in 2000, a mere three years into his 1997 mandate. For some reason, Conservatives have been incapable of effectively communicating that point.
However, the risk is that a future Liberal PM as arrogant as Chretien who is enjoying a majority mandate will still find a way to end his government at a time other than the fixed election date, citing this minority incident as a precedent.
Honestly, suggesting Harper will make abortion illegal is about as accurate as saying Dion will make it mandatory. How stupid do the Liberals think voters are?
Here is a list of officials who will be at the town hall meeting tonight being organized by the Ancaster Ratepayers Association on behalf of the traumatized 12000 Toronto residents who were evacuated early Sunday am.
As well, unnamed representatives from the Insurance, Fire, and Police departments will be on hand. The MP of the blast site, Ken Dryden, had a lengthy meeting on Tuesday with the ARA and it’s believed he won’t be present tonight but is expected to be sending a rep or a spokesperson to deliver a statement. No word on whether or not this individual will be able to answer questions on behalf of Mr. Dryden.
While this meeting is supposed to be a chance for residents to ask some very pointed questions of politicians and others, one Coun. is very noticeably going to be absent tomorrow. Coun. Maria Augimeri yesterday told a constituent to “shut up” as he demanded to know why she was not coming to the meeting organized buy the Ancaster Ratepayers Association. Tony Di Santo, the President of the ARA, was the target of her unacceptable public outburst. Tony reportedly asked her three times why she was snubbing our meeting in favour of holding her own meeting. Her answer? “Shut up! You need to shut up!”
For anyone going tonight, I encourage you to read and print a copy of Lorrie Goldstein’s article from today’s Sun. I am republishing it below, in full, because of the Sun’s habit of taking down their news stories after a couple of weeks. Goldstein gives great advice on how to trap a politician (or a bureaucrat) into having to give an answer, as they are trained to avoid answering questions directly. Furthermore he includes a list of questions that should be very hard for the politicians to weasel out of.
Political deflects
A few simple rules for getting answers from wriggling officials
Thu, August 14, 2008By Lorrie Goldstein
Tonight, the community in northwest Toronto from which 12,000 people had to flee for their lives early Sunday, after a privately owned propane depot blew up, will get their first real crack at questioning politicians.
Since politicians receive years of media training, often on our dime, here’s some free advice to those folks, based on 30 years of covering politicians, just to help even things up.
It also applies more generally in any situation where you’re trying to nail down politicians (and bureaucrats) about how and why they screwed up.
Rule #1: Bring video/tape recorders. You’ll want a record of what’s said.
Rule #2: Note who doesn’t show up. If someone’s not there who should be, a relevant politician or bureaucrat, ask why.
Rule #3: Write your question down. Keep it brief and specific. Don’t ramble or make a speech.
Rule #4: There’s nothing wrong with being genuinely angry and don’t worry if you get emotional. That said, if things get really heated, take a few deep breaths and calm down. (Ironically, Maria Augimeri, city councillor in the ward where Sunday’s propane blast occurred, got into a bizarre exchange yesterday with a local resident, during which she yelled at him to “shut up!”)
Rule #5: Don’t threaten anyone or accuse them of criminal conduct. While it’s unlikely, you could be charged or sued for slander. Plus, you will become the story, rather than the real story — government incompetence.
Rule #6: Once you ask a question, listen to the answer. Public figures are taught how to deflect questions by raising or answering a different one than what is asked.
Here’s an example. Question: “Why was Sunrise Propane legally allowed to set up next door to us when everyone within 1.6 km of the plant was advised by the police to run after it blew up? If everyone within 1.6 km was in danger, why was it given permission to operate across the street from our neighbourhood?”
Here’s how a politician might deflect this question:
Answer: “That’s a very good question. First, I’d ask you to join me in congratulating our police, firefighters and paramedics on the wonderful job they did.”
Then he’ll start applauding, until the audience joins in.
Then he’ll continue, “one of the things I hope to learn from you tonight is how we can improve our emergency response in these situations … blah, blah, blah.”
See? The politician deflected the question and trapped the audience into agreeing with him.
The way to avoid this is to listen closely to the first words out of a politician’s mouth after you’ve asked your question. If, within 45 seconds (keep time) he isn’t answering what you asked, interrupt politely but firmly saying: “I’m sorry, but we have limited time. Please answer my question.”
If the rules are you can only ask one question (it should be one and a supplementary) turn to the moderator and say: “He’s not answering my question. Please ask him to do so.”
If none of that works, you’ll know he never intended to answer.
Best questions
Here are some questions it will be hard for a politician to deflect:
(1) “Why did no one listen to us, when we warned you this would happen?”
(2) “Who made the decision to approve this propane depot and are they here tonight?”
(3) “Would you have lived across the street from this propane depot with your family?”
(4) “If there were all these safeguards, why did it blow up?”
(5) “Can you guarantee there won’t be another propane depot on that site?”
(6) “How will you compensate us for our damages?”
