And U. of T. Psi Upsilon, along with the Torys, McMillian, etc., so although he was of French Canadian heritage, and ended up living in P.Q., his formative years were in Ontario WASP culture.
I think I will agree to disagree; though he was by definition a Liberal, I’ve heard and read enough said and written by folks such as John Baird (of all people) to believe he was completely impartial.
I don’t know if I’d say genius; in fact he’s made plenty of mistakes, I agree. But he’s been consistently absolute in his resolve. When he was President of the National Citizens Coalition, that served him well, I’m sure… as leader of the government, not so much.
I don’t think we’re disagreeing, but arguing at cross purposes. You seem to be saying Milliken was fair and honest in his duties as Speaker. I heartily agree. Milliken was the most honest man in politics today. However, that’s not the same as “impartial.” If Milliken was impartial he could have run as an independent (and I suspect he’d have won, at least in the last few elections.)
Suppose, to use an analogy, I volunteer to umpire my daughter’s T-ball game. While I can be fair and honest in my duties as an umpire (Whcih of course I would be) and an external observer might watch and conclude I made every call fairly, I cannot be impartial. Impartiality is a matter of circumstance, not behaviour.
I noticed that the Liberals released their platform on a Sunday (to get in into the beginning of week cycle and have it followed all week) and the NDP are slated for this Sunday (likewise, I assume). So I wondered - why would the Conservatives release on a Friday, where editors go to bury stories (as less attention is paid on the weekends). It seems there’s a reason: it appears as though they are pulling some of this out of their asses:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/08/what-changed-in-the-last-17-days/
They found an extra $8 Billion sitting around over the last 17 days. Impressive!
Wow! Maybe they checked behind the cushions on the couch, or perhaps had a look in Harper’s sock drawer for change.
A more likely guess is that they are inflating projections of future government income beyond any reasonable expectation, and/or planning even more cuts to public services that they have neglected to tell anyone about.
What changed? Would it be too simplistic to say the price of oil (currently at $112/barrel USD)?
No, the savings will come from strategic reviews, program cuts, and attrition of public service employees apparently.
To think that any incumbent government would not put cost savings into their election platform is a little naive. It happens all the time.
It’s equally naive to believe it. Everyone pulls this “we’ll save billions by just cutting waste” baloney, and it never happens.
It takes guts to come out and say “We’re gonna cut spending but actually cutting spending” but I guess none of the parties have any guts, except the NDP, who seem to just openly say they’re gonna tax and spend like crazy bastards. You have to give them credit for being straightforward about it.
It’s the courage of people who know they’re never going to be called on to fulfill their promises.
Prime Minister Harper will be meeting with the girls that were bounced from his event, for their picture with Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff (aka Iggy!) posted on Facebook. A date has not been set, but his campaign will swing back around here before they’re done. The PM announced that he’d directed his RCMP detail to not roust the voters please. On last night’s news was tape of him directing, his people, to see those protesters get into his latest stop. It could seriously not have looked more staged.
One of the girls made it clear to the PM’s office, when contacted about an apology, that she was not interested in a photo op, that she just wanted a couple of questions answered. We’ll see how this plays out, should be entertaining.
It’s actually rather clever; the headlines read “Tories vow to eliminate deficit early”. Never mind that it’s only compared to the distant projection they previously came up with, it’s still “early”.
Why would the Conservatives have “mandatory drug testing for prison inmates” as a platform point? I mean…they’re in prison. How about better security/procedures/etc to prevent drugs from getting into prisons? Is it even that big an issue, for it to be part of an election platform? And what happens if a prisoner is tested and is found to be on drugs…he/she goes back to prison? Where they are able to get drugs anyways? So free money to drug testing laboratories, but no cure for the problem of drugs getting into prisons in the first place?
Either this is the dumbest bullet point ever, the news article I got it from misstateed it, or I missed some other aspect to it that might make it make sense to me. Does anyone know more information about this?
The theory is that if you can keep the prisoners off drugs while they are in prison, fewer of them will take up drugs again once they are out of prison.
I think that is a little simplistic, for it does not address the entire lifestyle that goes along with the prison drug culture, and continues after release.
I think it does play well with voters who are of the opinion that prisoners have it too easy. It also reinforces the idea that we ‘need’ new prisons that are more secure.
In terms of fact, this doesn’t pass my smell test. I think this is pandering to the voter base, pure and simple.
Oh my God! Politicians in an election cycle pandering to voters! Stop the presses!
Well, doing the way Harper is… kinda creepy…
I agree. It always boggles me that so many folks believe prisons are some sort of Club Med. They are fairly awful places…even with cable TV.
Frankly, the whole ‘new prisons’ platform kind of freaks me out a bit. Once you go down this road and pony up the hard/soft infrastructure it’s quite difficult to change directions especially when local economies (often depressed in the first place) become tied to the prison-industrial complex. It will just keep getting bigger and bigger until it becomes to big to die.
Just to summarize the link to article - Conservatives are promising to establish Ministry for Religious Freedom. Some of the qutoes from always subtle Immigration Minister Jason kenney:
:smack:
I just wonder at what point will decent folks draw a line…
The article obviously says nothing of the sort.
What it says is that they’re saying they will “create an office” within an existing Ministry (Foreign Affairs) that will monitor issues of religious freedom, with a very modest budget.
Saying that they’re planning on creating an entire Ministry when what they’re doing is just reassigning a few bureacrats is analogous to confusing a nuclear weapon with a Bic lighter.
While I may have described it somewhat eerily (for the effect) your analogy is not doing it the justice either.
Just the idea that such an office will be created within Foreign Affairs Department strikes me as odd, unncessary and obvioulsy created to derive partisan emotion from a wedge issue plus some payback for all the money that are going into Conservative’s campaign.
Also, it comes from the quarters of influence that is gaining strength in Canadian politics - the same ones that made Bev Oda insert “NOT”.
John Torry had an idea — funding for religous schools — from the same quarters of influence and it ended badly. My hope that the voters will recognize this and act responsibly.