• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Election 2011

ERC beat me to the example.

The company that designs the product, the company that manufacturers the product, the company that puts the product up, or communicates all employ people, thus jobs are established/maintained.

The Liberals did the same thing to a point, hiring Liberal companies who sometimes did the work, and sometimes did not, all the time funneling funds to the Liberal Party one way or another. The scheme was called Adscam. Millions are still missing.
 
And the Cons are as guilty of such scams.  They aren't exclusive to any party.  It's natural (if contemptible) to reward your friends as much as possible.  I just wish there was something to be done for it.  There isn't, of course.  The whole "Harper Government" bit lately was fun too - last time I checked it's Her Majesty's Government... but I guess taking the credit for 2008's relatively soft hit on us (thanks, in a not exactly small  part, to Liberal policies too) is part of preparations for an election too.

Once again I have no idea who I'll vote for.  The last couple of elections I voted for the Green candidate because I couldn't stomach the idea of voting Liberal, but found the Conservative candidates (Dean Del Mastro in the first incidence, Colin Carrie in the second) not particularly satisfactory.  It's not that I'm particularly enamored with anything they have to say, just that another voice is good, and I'd like to see theirs rise.

Rifleman62 said:
ERC beat me to the example.

The company that designs the product, the company that manufacturers the product, the company that puts the product up, or communicates all employ people, thus jobs are established/maintained.

The Liberals did the same thing to a point, hiring Liberal companies who sometimes did the work, and sometimes did not, all the time funneling funds to the Liberal Party one way or another. The scheme was called Adscam. Millions are still missing.
 
Redeye:
last time I checked it's Her Majesty's Government...

Is that your phrase, or are you quoting someone?

Modified to add:

I am sure you have proof of
And the Cons are as guilty of such scams

Chretien:
"No, a proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."
 
I couldn't bring myself to vote for "Wajid Khan" after he crossed the floor in Parliament.
The people of his riding didn't vote for a Conservative and that feeling lead to a Liberal win.
 
Rifleman62 said:
Redeye:
Is that your phrase, or are you quoting someone?

I'm recalling my high school civics type classes, but I'm pretty sure that is the correct term.


Rifleman62 said:
Modified to add:

I am sure you have proof of

Please, are you really going to try to suggest the Tories have never been embroiled in scandals?!  There's Bev Oda and "in & out" in more recent times.  The Airbus Affair is another that sticks in my head (though it wasn't really public money corruption).  The point I made is to suggest that any party is above scandal is utterly ridiculous.
 
Redeye said:
Please, are you really going to try to suggest the Tories have never been embroiled in scandals?!  There's Bev Oda and "in & out" in more recent times.

If you watch CBC the Conservatives have a scandal every week and nobody cares.  Why does nobody care?  Because the scandals are contrived, revolve around Parliamentary procedure, are not understandable by the average person, and money ended up in no-one's pocket.
 
It was "such scams" I was questioning. Advertising, not your glib accusation.

Yes, the Cons are not guilt free.

The phrase "last time I checked it's Her Majesty's Government..." was posted this a.m. in, wait for it, horror of horrors, a Blog.
 
The whole "Steven Harper Government" thing gives me a laugh. After all, the Opposition and the Legacy media have been coflating the man and the government since the first minority government was elected in 2006, so the Prime Minister is simply formalizing the convention  ;)

Think about that next time you go to the archives and read about what "the Harper government" was doing back when....
 
Thucydides said:
Think about that next time you go to the archives and read about what "the Harper government" was doing back when....

In colloquial use, that's fine - that's how most people describe governments in history - but in official communication, it seems just inappropriate (just as it would be for any party, again, this isn't a partisan issue).
 
I don’t want to appear cynical, and I am, in fact, a Conservative Party member and financial supporter, but, as I see it the opposition parties have two main lines of attack against Harper:

1. Arrogance and abuse of democracy; and
2. Spending on the “wrong” priorities – corporate tax cuts and the F-35.

It seems to me that Japan and Libya have, rather neatly, taken Item 2 off the table.

The Japan disaster makes the prospect of another economic slowdown, even another recession, possible – not probable, in my opinion, but more possible than, say, a week ago. The Conservatives get pretty good marks from Canadians on economic management – they can 'sell' corporate tax cuts, unpopular though they are, as part of the recovery. Canadians are, by and large, economically illiterate but they can grasp that it is a corporation, not Aunt Agnes, who is likely to create a new job and paying less to government means the corporation can pay new employees. It’s not an easy sell but it’s possible.

The deployment of CF-188s to Libya should silence critics of the F-35: it would be bad form to tell our Air Force that it cannot have the new, 5th generation, fighter it wants even as it is flying 30 year old workhorses into battle.

That leaves arrogance and abuse of democracy – Bev Oda, parliamentary privilege, “in and out” campaign financing and so on. I’m not sure those issues resonate with Canadians voters outside the greenbelt.

Who says wars and disasters are bad?  ;)
 
E.R. Campbell said:
The deployment of CF-188s to Libya should silence critics of the F-35...
I suspect it will have no effect on one particular nay-sayer    ;)
 
Journeyman said:
I suspect it will have no effect on one particular nay-sayer    ;)

<awaiting 17 news clippings in response>
 
There was an interesting point this morning on Question Period.  The fact is that most Canadians could care less about the Conservatives being in contempt, the in and out scandal and even the Bev Oda ink ammendment.  But a 62 year old former top advisor to Harper with a 22 year old former escort fiance who maybe guilty of influence peddling makes for better dirt.  Even though in all likelyhood the "Harper government" may not have done anything wrong, they'll wear this and it will crystalise the other issues that no one cares about now.

Funny how that works.  You'd figure this was US politics at times. 
 
Crantor said:
There was an interesting point this morning on Question Period.  The fact is that most Canadians could care less about the Conservatives being in contempt, the in and out scandal and even the Bev Oda ink ammendment.  But a 62 year old former top advisor to Harper with a 22 year old former escort fiance who maybe guilty of influence peddling makes for better dirt.  Even though in all likelyhood the "Harper government" may not have done anything wrong, they'll wear this and it will crystalise the other issues that no one cares about now.

Funny how that works.  You'd figure this was US politics at times.

The fact that Harper called an RCMP investigation before the story broke negates any scandal the liebrals may try make out of this. There has already been a number of polls (you believe them when they work for your argument, right?) and they all point to the populous not caring.

Most people don't even know who  Bruce Carson is, let alone care that he has a classy looking gal on his arm. The 'escort' in fact, has taken over the story, instead of the alleged influence peddling.

All indications are that people are waking up to the fact that Ignatieff is trying to manufacture a scandal, any scandal he can, to call the election rather than stick to his guns and vote down a budget he's said he won't vote for. Even though he hasn't seen it.

The public, including swing liberals, see everything that Iggy and Rae are doing as a desperate attempt, to force an election and hope to gain a minuscule, short lived, liebral government, so they can justify the acclamation of Prince Iggy at the last nomination gathering.

If they can't prove this time around that they have a viable platform (nothing so far), a viable candidate, (self explanatory) and a vision moving forward (nothing so far, except more taxes and social programs) they are a 'dead man walking.'

The liberals need a cleansing, like other parties have gone through. Total decimation, a thoughtful look and plan, and a rebuild. They have held the idea too long, that they are THE NATURAL GOVERNING PARTY and they are comletely deluded.

It will take a total trouncing to show them they have to get in touch with the majority of voters, who have grown up and think about business and pocketbooks, not global ideals and faith in helping the fellow man that is too friggin' lazy to get out of bed that they thought about in university.

Their early, socialist, student party members now have businesses that are working under Harper, but are threatened under Ignatieff.

They may still call themselves liberal when they are sipping spritzers and talking about homeless shelters at thier soirees, but they'll swallow thier pride in private and X the Conservative box in the polling booth when they think about their homes and businesses.
 
recceguy said:
...
Most people don't even know who  Bruce Carson is, let alone care that he has a classy looking gal on his arm. The 'escort' in fact, has taken over the story, instead of the alleged influence peddling.
...


This story, in the National Post, says different:

Extract follows
"In the poll, Canadians were given two choices for what they think is the most important issue in the election.

Sixty-three per cent said that “electing a party and leader that will provide honest, open and trustworthy government” is more important.

By comparison, 37% believe that “electing a party and leader that will make sure that our economic recovery continues” is more important.

Those findings, on their surface, should be good news for the Liberals. But in an ironic twist, the very issue the Liberals are trumpeting could backfire on them in a campaign.

Here’s why:

• 28% of Canadians believe the Conservatives, if re-elected, would do the best job of “providing honest, open and trustworthy government.”

• 22% believe the NDP would do the best job of this.

• Just 15% say the Liberals would be best at providing honest, open and trustworthy government.

• 7% say the Bloc would be best.

• 29% don’t endorse any of the major parties as best to deliver this type of government.

Ipsos Reid president Darrell Bricker said the poll shows the Liberals were right to identify the correct issue for the campaign, but apparently neglected to ensure it would be a political winner for them.

“You can see people want to have ethical government. They’re not wrong about that. What they (the Liberals) are wrong about is seeing themselves as the people who are capable of delivering it. The proof is not there for the public.”"


As the article says, people want "honest, open and trustworthy government" but they are (barely) persuaded that the Tories are more likely than the Liberals to provide it.

I continue to think that the "trust" issues, including Carson and his escort-girlfriend, are inside the greenbelt issues; Carosn might be a real scandal but I suspect we will have a new parliament before the police get around to reporting on anything juicy.
 
The Liberal Party certainly needs a new plan; the Red Book was rolled out in 1993, and reiterating promises that were not considered important enough to keep 18 years ago is more than just weak....
 
Thucydides said:
The Liberal Party certainly needs a new plan; the Red Book was rolled out in 1993, and reiterating promises that were not considered important enough to keep 18 years ago is more than just weak....

Yet, to date, it is still the only plan that they have. You would have thought, a bourguois aristocrat, Ignatieff could have come up with something better than the communist agenda the librerals have tabled in the last 20 years. My dollars, and corporate dollars supporting all the people in, and out, of Canada that refuse to work for themselves.
 
Back
Top