Thursday, June 10, 2004

Canadian Election Notes

its not just martin that is thinking the electorate is stupid:

"People are drifting to the Conservatives in an aimless fashion . . . no one is paying attention," Liberal national campaign co-chairman David Herle.
---quoted from the globe and mail.

more from ibbitsons' column at the globe:

Today's Ipsos-Reid poll shows the Liberals and Tories essentially tied in Southwestern Ontario. One Liberal insider who knows the region is far more glum.

"We're calling it Tornado Alley," he remarked, linking the region's meteorological disposition with the political. "The question for us is whether we can stop this storm before it breaches the 905," the area code for the Toronto region's suburban cities.

"A lot of people are very, very angry," Ms. Barnes acknowledges. "Sometimes I can turn them, other times I just stand there and take it."

fascinating...i happen to know of another poll that seems to be right on the money

meanwhile, back in the camp of the 'people with ideas'

Harper: Skilled newcomers unused
Tory leader promises speedier recognition of professionals


BRAMPTON - Conservative Leader Stephen Harper wants the professional credentials of immigrants recognized more quickly.

Harper said today that foreign-born doctors, engineers and others are being kept from working in their fields because of delays in recognizing their credentials.

"Too often ... immigrants are finding it difficult to use the very skills that earned them admission to Canada in the first place," Harper said.

"That's why a Conservative government will ensure speedier recognition of foreign credentials and prior work experience."

so obviously a good idea...where have priorities of the liberals been over the last ten years when we have multitudes of foreign doctors who could alleviate our health care crisis somewhat?
in yet another camp i like to call "liberal lackeyville", the toronto star tries to contrast apples and oranges..and surprise! guess how the comparison rates:

Editorial: Harper trickery creates illusions

(ed-well thank goodness, i would have been upset if his trickery was ineffective.)

With the Conservatives and Liberals running neck-and-neck in Ontario, the pundits are saying that Prime Minister Paul Martin is paying a huge price for Premier Dalton McGuinty's broken promises and, in particular, for his highly unpopular, new health-care premium, or tax.

But if Ontario voters are foisting McGuinty's baggage on Martin, how is it that they fail to see the resemblance between Conservative leader Stephen Harper and former premier Mike Harris? The two self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives are, without a doubt, two peas from the same pod.

Like Harris, Harper is promising to slash taxes, reduce the debt and protect our most essential spending programs.

But in contrast to Harris, who chopped social assistance, environmental programs, money for cities and spending in a number of other areas to pay for his tax cuts, Harper is promising not to cut anything, except for subsidies to business, which he would re-channel into corporate tax cuts.

Harper wants voters to believe there is already enough money in Ottawa to pay for his proposed massive tax cuts, make significant improvements in health care and defence, and offer new help to the cities. All that without cutting into any other program that Ottawa now delivers


first off, this editorial is based on two fuzzy assumptions
1) harper and harris are part of the same party. they aren't. and have never been. by contrast mcguinty and martin are, and have always been. Note: martin has defended mcguinty is not promising to never increase taxes himself.
2) the conservatives aren't planning to cut anything other than business subsidies. this is not true. actually, this editorial lies outright. the cons are planning to cut ei premiums, use the fiscal surplus that accumulates every year, and review or cut 30 billion in government contracts. also, hrdc is going to be overhauled, the gun registry scrapped, the crtc whittled... geez, this editorial is lying throught the teeth.

the main problem that critics point to in the conservative budgets, are the fiscal 'cushions' that conservatives propose. that's the only debate right many billions the cons will reserve between the expenditures and the revenues collected. if and when revenues do not 'hit targets', there may be a discussion of how much of a cushion there will be. this is a long, long way from saying that 'cuts will be fast and furious'.

even if there were, do we really need to pay for half the crap ottawa pays for?

ie: ministry of heritage, universal bilingualism, adrienne clarkson, excessive personal expense claims, free mp haircuts, etc...alright i'll stop but you get the picture.

No comments: