PM seeks Parliament shutdown till March 2010

[vonGarvin]

'Moral' is the wrong word, but I'll go with it since I'm too tired to seek out the right word.

laziness is no excuse.  "Moral Leadership" is the exact phrase I was seeking.

'Moral leadership' is just as powerful and useful as executive power. Certainly it was 'moral leadership' that dictated we should assist Haiti, not just the longstanding governmental commitment to Haiti.
Anyone who believes otherwise is a buffoon.

From some reports, the ball was rolling to assist Haiti due to the PM's direction prior to even being contacted by the GG.  He is the executive leader of the government.  The GG is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, I get that, but in reality, that is more figure head, and a symbol, than anything.  Now, pay attention, because this buffoon is about to teach you a lesson in moral leadership.

The PM has directed the Armed Forces to provide assistance.  The Armed Forces is doing that.  The face of Canada, however, is the GG, and she will symbolise to the world in General, and to Haiti in particular, of the moral effort Canada is putting into this.  You are dead wrong if you suggest that the GG is responsible to deploy the armed forces.  That executive power belongs with the PM, and the PM alone. 
All that aside, when Canada speaks on the world stage, the GG will stand and proudly declare that Canada is helping its neighbour, and she will call upon her fellow Canadians to lend a hand.  She will provide the moral compass for Canada in Haiti's time of need.  The PM had already decided to act by sending elements of the forces.  The rest of the help, through donations primarily, will be sought for by the GG.  That, my dear fellow, is moral leadership.

Asia is bigger than Haiti.

Thanks for that.

We already had longstanding contacts in Haiti and could move in quickly, whereas Southeast Asia was a much more volatile climate both politically and geographically.

I highly doubt for one moment that you even suggest that our contacts in Haiti were able to contact us.  The PM threw diplomacy out the window and took the word of a minor Haitian Diplomat as an official call for help.  Why?  There was no contact.  Yes, we have had, and continue to have CF members there in Haiti.  That played no role in why we could move quickly.
As for the tsunami, the announcement that the DART would even deploy took a week.  They could have said, much earlier, that it was leaving, but the CF cannot move without executive leadership, even though the moral leadership was screaming to HELP.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

The GG holds a LOT of sway with the government, regardless of how you picture her. She is the representative of the Queen of Canada, our Queen.

The GG doing the bidding twice for the government - I assume this is in relation to her prorogation of parliament twice. She made the right choice in the first prorogation - Canadians didn't want a second election so quickly, and too many people were against a coalition government. As for the second prorogation, I don't think she put much thought into it - she most likely just saw the Olympics and understood why to prorogue it past January 25th.

Were the GG not to follow the PM's advice we would have a constitutional crisis on our hands.  Note that the Queen follows the advice of the UK's PM just as the GG follows our PM's.  Some people don't think that unelected people should be making government decisions.  Because they both must follow the PM's advice doesn't mean they do it without giving their opinion.

The one significant real power the GG does have is to hire and fire the PM.  It's usually an obvious decision.  I think the only exception was the King-Byng affair where the Liberals lost the election but refused to quit and when they failed to gain confidence in the House demanded new elections which they only got after the new Conservative government failed to get confidence in the House.

 

[a_majoor]

I appreciate your position; you and I see prorogation differently, that’s all. But the Harper Haters are real – see Lawrence Martin, for example. The Harper haters are ideologues – every bit as much, say, our very own Thucydides.

While I am an ideologue of the Libertarian bent, I am also pragmatic enough to realize that the Libertarian Party or related movements like the Freedom Party are not in any position to make electoral gains now or in the forseeable future. Some of it is because of Gramscian damage created by a century of "Progressive" thought which makes it difficult for people to understand all the implications of this political philosophy (the standard objection: "but who will take care of the poor?" for example), while the larger reason is organizing Libertarians is like herding cats. >

Being a pragmatist, I will settle for continuing an insurgency against Stateists, collectivists and Socialists, and using whatever existing strucutures and organizations to add leverage to my actions. Don't think I am happy with the CPC right now, and I have a few things in mind for them as well....

 

[Journeyman]

I recognize that polling is not magic, and is prone to error...

Yet you obviously continue to place your faith in it.

Since your response contains no indication that you actually read/understand either link provided, and merely repeats the 2nd-year PolSci mantra of your earlier posts (-ie it's mathematical; since it's measurable, it must accurately portray reality*), the obvious way ahead is simply more " :argue: "

I will therefore bow out of this discussion.



* Yes, there are people unhappy with this latest prorogation. So what?! I wasn't happy with the Liberal's (increasingly failing) gun registration. I didn't quote some CBC poll in a feeble attempt to buttress my opinion.

 

[brihard]

Yet you obviously continue to place your faith in it.

Since your response contains no indication that you actually read/understand either link provided, and merely repeats the 2nd-year PolSci mantra of your earlier posts (-ie it's mathematical; since it's measurable, it must accurately portray reality*), the obvious way ahead is simply more " :argue: "

I will therefore bow out of this discussion.



* Yes, there are people unhappy with this latest prorogation. So what?! I wasn't happy with the Liberal's (increasingly failing) gun registration. I didn't quote some CBC poll in a feeble attempt to buttress my opinion.

I have enough faith in literally decades of mathematical study that has validated the methodology of polling. I'ts almost never perfect, but generally speaking it provides a pretty reliable metric of the public's views on given subjects.

Your objections to the efficacy of polling notwithstanding, you really have not provided a counter to any of the substance of what I've said. You charitably 'recognize that there are people unhappy with the prorogation'. Do you assert that of the Canadians aware of prorogue, the majority are NOT opposed to it? Are you claiming that it is not significant to our national discourse that this many Canadians are actively concerned about what's happening (or more particularly, not happening) right now? Are you trying to say that there is not at least a significant number of us who voted conservative who are opposed to prorogue?

You've come out swinging against polling (yet without any actual critique of its methodology or sampling in this case; merely a couple of anecdotes of instances where polling has not been particularly well used), yet you've declined my offer to provide a link to the source data for your own review, and you haven't actually said anything of real substance or taken a specific view. In light of that, short of defending what you've challenged, there's really not much more I can say.


EDIT TO ADD:

E.R. Campbell; my apologies, I got sidetracked here and forgot about the reply you posted to me earlier. I'm packing it in for the night now, but I'll endeavour to get back to you as soon as I'm able, since your post definitely deserves a response.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Brihard, I'm curious. Did you object this strenuously for any of the other 100+ times this has happened?

 

[Journeyman]

I'd drafted this as a PM to Brihard, since I had walked away from this thread shaking my head at some peoples' naiveté. However, I feel that understanding polls is important.



Brihard, I'll repeat the critical link verbatim. Please take the 30 seconds to read it.

I worked for Ipsos-Reid. Their call floor is in downtown Winnipeg. The way the polls work is this. They ask you about your support for the Government's commitment to having the troops in Afghanistan: "a. strongly support, b. support, c. oppose, or d. strongly oppose". If they punch in an "a" or "b" answer, it automatically brings up "Those are all my questions. On behalf of Ipsos Reid and myself, I would like to thank you for participating in our poll today. Have a good evening. Good-bye." If they punch in a "c" or "d", the next question about the troops in Afghanistan, or the Government pops up, and the survey continues damning the Government, the Troops, or both. Been there, done that - night, after night, after night. The kids (mostly age 16 to 20) will keep calling on this till they get a good number of negative responses, usually a pre-determined amount. Thankfully, I wasn't there long, but long enough to realize what a scam public opinion polling is.

In this case, the poll, contracted by a left-leaning media outlet, will result in:
"Yes, I'm OK with prorogation" = "thank you for participating in our poll today" or
"No, I'm against prorogation" = the survey continues the anti-Government questions

Now I don't know whether you're working on a BA in Economics or Politics or whatever; yes, I grant you the mathematics behind polling is well known. But as noted in the CBC link, in addition to its other weaknesses (eg - people with little interest, [I suggest an overwhelming percentage of the polity] will not respond at all) it's increasingly flawed because a growing demographic use cell phones, which do not get polled.

Despite it's known and spreading shortfalls, it remains a key tool in the Humanities...because it's all they've got -- that's what the professors had to learn, so that's what they pass along as the Holy Grail (much like some military leadership/staff schools will take a generation to get past the Fulda Gap, but that's a separate rant)

In the example above,* the survey is increasingly skewed by,
a) the actual question asked (would the poll results and/or your ardent support change had the question asked been "should the government table the prisoner-abuse allegations to committee so it can focus on actually governing"?), and
b) the conduct of the survey, wherein anti-government results get more in-depth questioning.
I suspect that had the polling results not met with the view favoured by the editor, it either never would have been published, or it would have been played down and buried back in the classifieds

Not only have I spent my life "burning villages, women and children," I've also spent a bit of time dwelling amongst the Marxists of academe -- I know how polls work. As such, I guess we'll have to accept our differing degrees of faith in them.



* You dismiss the source, who had "boots on ground" in polling for Ipsos-Reid, as merely anecdotal. Should one suggest that any posting you make, based on Afghan experience, be equally dismissed as anecdotal? Personally, I would have more faith in someone's opinion, preferably informed by research and experience, than an anonymous poll structurally flawed to reach a pre-ordained conclusion.

 

[observor 69]

Nicely done JM, I have no problem with your argument but from what I am reading it's not just about this one poll but a "slide" in ranking over the last while:

Jodi Shanoff, vice-president of public affairs for Angus Reid Strategies, said the backlash over proroguing Parliament speaks to the bigger issue of the Conservative slide in the polls since late fall when the Harper government was enjoying 40 per cent support and flirting with majority territory.

"Canadians don't altogether trust Stephen Harper and even his own supporters in this case are showing a little bit of skepticism about his motivation," she said.

A new poll released by EKOS too highlighted a Conservative slide since the fall, when the Tories enjoyed a 15-point lead over the Liberals, which now has been reduced to five percentage points. The poll had the Tories with 33.1 per cent support, the Liberals at 27.8 per cent, the NDP at 16 per cent and the Greens at 13.4 per cent.

The EKOS poll looked at the prorogation issue and found it registered strongly with Canadians and was receiving "universal raspberries," said president Frank Graves.

LINK

Hoping a "slide" is more statisically valid than a poll.  :-\

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I had a big rant on this, but then I accidentally clicked on a different link and lost it.
Which is good, because I responded emotionally at how stupid of a statement that was. Instead, I'll sum it up for you (with proper spelling, to boot!):

So is it politics you take too seriously or yourself?  I have thought Parliament was a goat rodeo for decades, through many governments. 

Not only have I spent my life "burning villages, women and children," I've also spent a bit of time dwelling amongst the Marxists of academe -- I know how polls work. As such, I guess we'll have to accept our differing degrees of faith in them.

I would also be curious if Canadians are against the prorouge as to why.  I would intuitively think that it is because of perceived getting paid to slack off and not "work" and not because they are so morally outraged at the lack of debate about how some pack of arseholes who dedicated their lives to killing NATO soldiers (or helping those who do) got treated by their fellow countrymen within the bounds of their own laws. 

Use rational thought and choose.

It is my rational thought that allows me to see what an inefficient, money wasting government system we have.  To see something dramatically different, led by someone whom I respect and trust doesn't strike me as being all that bad. 
Pride goeth before the fall. 

 

[PolSciPof]

Critics of Harper readily jump into conclusion that proroguation was circumvention of public scrutiny in the torture of detainees. What if that is not what Harper has in mind but only to pose in front of cameras in the Winter Olympics together with other Conservatives? Moreover, proroguation was a  privilige on which the critical Left presumed to have sinister motives. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. If Harper allegedly 'has  sinnned' so did the crtics.

Harper is not the leader to pick nor MacKay. Conservative economic policies have worked for us. The less taxes, the more investments. The  more investments, the more revenues. The more revenues , the more welfare. Singapore which started as a country with a landmass as large as Toronto applied this policy. Look! Their per capita income is almost as high as USA. She also has 40 billionn dollars in surplus. What did Trudeau nd McGuinty do to our economy. TAxed companies to death. The result was a ballooning 800 billion dollars in debt. . Nobody wants to believe that cuttting taxes  is the remedy. Look    at USA. 400 billion dollars surplus

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Look    at USA. 400 billion dollars surplus

You might want to restate that.  I googled US surplus and all I got were army surplus stores, somehow fitting because fighting wars is where much of their debt came from.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

The link:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5g5dRvsRL1YwO-b3lYfT2O8GzSYmw

Last year's deficit surged to US$1.42 trillion, more than three times the record of the previous year, an imbalance of US$454.8 billion set in 2008.

 

[PolSciPof]

When Clinton came into power the Cold War also ended. USA was able to pay 700 billion dollar debt. From thereon succeeding governments earned surpluses. Whatever is the reason why the US government through their clandestine networks like CIA, DIA , FBI direct journalists to print those 'ballooning debts' is part of a grand strategy to 'feign weakness' (Sun Tzu's Art of War) same way as when the old Soviiet Union sent Nozenko and Yurchenko to make CIA believe that if a world war ensued USSR would not be able to win it because of poor nuclear technology. This is open source. Read Naomi Klein's DISASTER CAPITALISM. From her very own book you will read that even USA and CAnada have spin doctors exagerating our debt to make the public aware and force them to save money. Again these are open sources and NOT CLASSIFIED.

 

[ModlrMike]

So let me get this straight. You're saying that the US and Canadian governments are lying about the size of their debts in order to have the sheeple save money? Wow, who knew? Wait... the CIA, FBI and DIA right?  :

 

[a_majoor]

When Clinton came into power the Cold War also ended. USA was able to pay 700 billion dollar debt. From thereon succeeding governments earned surpluses. Whatever is the reason why the US government through their clandestine networks like CIA, DIA , FBI direct journalists to print those 'ballooning debts' is part of a grand strategy to 'feign weakness' (Sun Tzu's Art of War) same way as when the old Soviiet Union sent Nozenko and Yurchenko to make CIA believe that if a world war ensued USSR would not be able to win it because of poor nuclear technology. This is open source. Read Naomi Klein's DISASTER CAPITALISM. From her very own book you will read that even USA and CAnada have spin doctors exagerating our debt to make the public aware and force them to save money. Again these are open sources and NOT CLASSIFIED.

I haven't read anything quite so funny since I read "Disaster Capitalism" (which is a hilarious confection of unwarrented assumptions, cherry picking and strawman arguments. ) Will you point out the effects of these large surpluses in the economy to us? Perhaps you can provide the econometric data that shows a large increase in the saveings rate starting with the Clinton Administration (or is this somehow attached to the Bush Administration?)

Since my higher education is in economics, I must be missing something here. We are in a period of unstable equilibrium right now and the signs point to two possible outcomes: a massive surge in inflation or a prolonged period of deflationary stagnation (such as Japan has been undergoing since the 1990's). Since very critical policy choices must be made, and soon, I will be looking with interest at what baloons the government floats in the lead up to their economic readjustments, and the economic update in March.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I haven't read anything quite so funny since I read "Disaster Capitalism" (which is a hilarious confection of unwarranted assumptions, cherry picking and strawman arguments. ) Will you point out the effects of these large surpluses in the economy to us? Perhaps you can provide the econometric data that shows a large increase in the saveings rate starting with the Clinton Administration (or is this somehow attached to the Bush Administration?)

Since my higher education is in economics, I must be missing something here. We are in a period of unstable equilibrium right now and the signs point to two possible outcomes: a massive surge in inflation or a prolonged period of deflationary stagnation (such as Japan has been undergoing since the 1990's). Since very critical policy choices must be made, and soon, I will be looking with interest at what baloons the government floats in the lead up to their economic readjustments, and the economic update in March.

Now lets wait for it.......

As per the Tinfoil Chapeau SOP:
1.  Ignore the reasonable, well put question(s).
2.  Post new series of opinion based wild hare suppositions.
3.  When new, qualified, intelligent info is provide for above, goto step 1. 

 

[PolSciPof]

Thucyd..., we are not in a recession. We have NEVER ! been ever since Obama declared that we and US were. Why do I say that? Look at real estate prices nowdays. Houses in Mississauga on the average cost 300-500 thousand. We are lucky we only have 2-3% inflation rate. Other countries register 20-30 %. Ten years ago, New York was in recession. That caused a relative of mine to be able to buy a house at 40 thousand. It was good. Five bedrooms with basement. Those are the parameters I use to gauge whether your analysis has bearing or none.

Here's my reply to other poster. What for did the government of USA organize the CIA if it would not allow the CIA lawful countermeasures to combat economic SABOTAGE & espionage waged by communist countries if it would not hide its progress report. Just like a rich man who does not want to flaunt its money for fear of being a victim of kidnapping for ransom, US does the same.


sIR ZIPPERHEAD COP,well put. Just like any forum, riddled with irrational leftists and pinko commies. Thank you zipperhead cop

 

[observor 69]

Ref the comments on polls; a thought from todays G&M:  ;D

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/

 

[Rifleman62]

That's not a thought from the G & M. It's a shot. A big shot.

Think about it. At this time the world is rushing disaster aid to Haiti. The cartoon shows Canada's PM, day dreaming out a window with his hands in his pockets worrying about polls.

I would think lots and lots of Canadians are satisfied with Canada's quick response. Obviously the G & M is not, otherwise would they depict Mr. Harper fiddling while Haiti burns.

To quote ERC; Yellow journalism (although I do not use that word to describe the shidt that passes for media in Canada).

P.S. Must be in window at his residence, because we all know he and the government are not at work.

 

[observor 69]

G&M :

"The outpouring of Canadian support prompted the federal government, in a commendable move, to match Canadians' own donations to earthquake relief, up to $50-million.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/canadians-doing-proud/article1433601/