NDP math for beginners!

Much has been made over the NDP blasting the PM's handling of the first nations community of Attawapiskat. Some $90,000,000.00 has been spent on this community and that's just the amount since the Conservatives have been in office.

As PM Stephen Harper pointed out, when you divide that $90,000,000.00 by the 1,800 people within the community, you end up with each man, woman and child getting about $50,000.00 each.

Splitting hairs as they always do, the NDP say that there is a $4,500,000.00 deficit and when you break it down the total is either $5,000.00 or $6,000.00 or $6,500.00 per person. Well... they couldn't seem to decide on one number. So three figures are better than one.

However, if we take them at their word (like the sheep do) that there is a $4,500,000.00 deficit, over 5 years that would be $22,500,000.00 in total.

When you subtract that from the $90,000,000.00 spent you end up with $67,500,000.00 left.

Divide that by 5 years and you have $13,500,000.00 per year.

Divide that by the 1,800 people in the community and you have $7,500.00 per person / per year.

Which basically means that the margin of error on the NDP's figures is somewhere between 15% (at the $6,500.00 amount) and 50% (at the $5,000.00 amount).

Utterly spectacular math skills they've got going there. And they wonder why the clear majority of the country won't let their grubby hands anywhere near the country's finances.

Anti floor-crossing bill and the Titanic's deck chairs

There has been some talk recently about NDP MP Peter Stoffer's attempts to pass a bill that would prevent MP's from leaving one party to join another party in the House of Commons... commonly referred to as floor-crossing. It is his and many other people's belief that if a person is elected under the banner of one party, for them to leave that party and join another is a betrayal of the constituents who elected that MP.

Nonsense.

The problem is not in whether a person leaves one party and joins another. The problem is with the whole concept of parties in general.

Citizens are voting for parties. Not for ideas. Not for MP's who live in the area and understand both the needs and how to best represent the interests of the constituents. They are voting for parties.

The recent election of countless placeholder NDP MP's in Quebec is indicative of the real problem here. How is it possible that people who have never set foot in an area can become the functional leader of that area?

The fact that the focus is on the party and not on the individual best suited to represent the local constituents is a betrayal of the whole concept of local representation in government. Local constituents are no longer voting for local representation. They are voting largely for the image and rhetoric and not for needs and ideas.

I have no sympathy for this bill because it is nothing but rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Party focused systems of government are the problem, not whether a person decides that the best interests for their constituents lies in voting or even sitting with the government.

If he or anybody else has a problem with MP's deciding that it is better to be part of the government who makes decisions affecting their local constituency rather than part of a party on the sidelines, then the solution is simple. Don't ban floor-crossing. Ban the concept of parties. That would take care of two birds with one stone.

No more placeholder candidates.

No more floor-crossing.

Just a return to the real purpose of local representation.

Calling Out Jack Layton On Civility

So, Jack... you're the one who was so fired up about civility in this session of Parliament. Not that you've really kept your word so far.

I have yet to hear word one from you about Brigette DePape, the young Senate page who disrupted the Governor General during the throne speech with a dramatic and churlish demonstration.

It doesn't surprise me that the media seems to be going out of its way to avoid having to ask you your opinion on this. It's much easier for them to build this unprofessional imbecile up as some martyr of civil disobedience without exposing her to the yardstick that you set for Parliament.

But if you're so dedicated to transforming Parliament into a place where the people charged by Canadians to keep the wheels of government turning productively and politely, let's hear what you have to say about one of those people turning her back on her responsibilities and in fact disrespecting the institution and mechanisms (the throne speech) of Parliament.

The definition of civility is quite clear. And this page certainly was neither courteous nor polite.

So let's hear it.

We'll wait.

Globe & Mail Engages In A Blistering Attack

Let's get this straight.

According to the Globe & Mail, the Conservative Party is testing the NDP's pledge to seek more civility and respect between members of Parliament" by launching a "blistering attack" on the NDP.

What was that blistering attack? International Trade Minister Ed Fast said that the policies the NDP have said they want to put forward would be bad for business.

Now, let's compare.

Mr. Fast called Jack Layton's party “reflexively and ideologically anti-trade,” accusing it of acting contrary to the interests of “hard-working Canadians."

So, according to the Globe & Mail this is what one could consider to be a "blistering attack". Never mind that article author Steven Chase was reduced to cutting and pasting one or two word fragments as quotes to make his point that this was some kind of "blistering attack".

Now, let's compare that to what Jack Layton said a couple of days ago about the Harper Government's response to the flooding in Quebec:

"His policy is to not help people. He said he's not there to do the cleanup or something to that effect. That is an attitude that does not respect the population."

And...

"And the idea that they don't want to interfere with the private sector . what is this? You want to promote the private sector to make money off the misery of people.

"What kind of an attitude is that? Is that the beginning of the attitude we're going to see on the privatization of health care and the privatization of all kinds of things which should be done by the government?

And those were just straight up, full sentence quotes of Jack Layton. Didn't even have to cut it down to one or two word fragments to frame what he said.

Geez... I don't know. I can't figure out which is more of a "blistering attack". Mind you it's not like we expect such incivility from Mr. Layton, the least civil MP in the House of Commons.

There really is only one clear element to this entire brouhaha involved in a blistering attack.

That would be the editorial staff of the Globe & Mail.

Dispelling the Myth of the 60% Against Harper

We've heard it before. It's nothing new. Supporters of the NDP and the also-ran parties are once again claiming that, while the Conservatives achieved a majority, a clear majority of 60 percent of Canadians voted against the Conservatives.

Mindless, uneducated nonsense.

The only way to claim that the majority were voting against the Conservatives is if there was a virtual guarantee that either the Conservatives, a) could not have polled higher than they did on election day, or b) could in no way have hit 50 percent of the vote.

Running up to the election, polls had the Conservatives as high as 43 percent or as low as 36 percent with the Conservatives most of the time hovering in the 39 percent region.

However, Compass appears to be one of the few companies that asked the all-important question that the "Anything But Conservative" equation absolutely depends upon: voter's second intentions.

And that is a telling story indeed.

According to the real world numbers, the Conservatives were the second choice for 11 percent of the population. So, the idea that the majority of voters were voting against the Harper Conservatives has no basis in reality.

In fact, if the Conservatives kept their steady base of 39 percent and everybody who would have voted for the Conservatives with their second choice in fact did vote for their second choice, the Conservatives would have unquestionably cracked the majority marker.

But I'm not arguing against reality the way that the whining, sore-losers are. The reality is that 39 percent of the population voted for the Conservatives. And knowing that the Conservatives were the second choice of enough voters to put them into absolute majority territory, suggesting that 60 percent of Canadians voted against the Conservatives only holds true if you also say that:

1. 69% of voters voted against the NDP
2. 81% of voters voted against the Liberals
3. 94% of voters voted against the Bloc
4. 96% of voters voted against the Green Party

Now, can we put this sore-loser nonsense to bed once and for all?

** UPDATE **

And one other point I wanted to mention. The idea of an "Anything But Conservative" majority has one other major detractor. We already know how much support Canadians had in the past with an "Anything But Conservative" situation. And only 4 out of 10 Canadians supported it.

Anything? Sorry, but it looks like that 60 percent number is actually the opposite: 60 percent of Canadians are against "ANYTHING But Conservative".

** SECOND UPDATE **

In the comments, Oxygentax linked his list of significant decisions/programs made by parties who obtained a majority of the house without achieving a majority of the votes. Considering the snail's pace of significant government decisions/programs one sees in minority governments (such as the past 5 years) I imagine that you could easily count a good two-thirds of that list as gone. (h/t to Oxygentax)

And on a related note, imagine how exaggerated that kind of problem would be in a multi-party proportional representation system. Actually, you don't even have to imagine...

Blue Liberals: are you scared yet? It's time to choose...

One has to wonder whether the blue Liberals are starting to get scared. After all, with the possibility of the Liberal party facing extinction and the NDP taking a shot at the big chair, the fiscally conservative arm of the Liberal party certainly will need to take stock.

As much as they don't like Harper, are they willing to risk Jack Layton being the one to fuel the economic engines of Canada?

As much as they don't like the moderately conservative social policies of the present Conservative Party, are they willing to watch the NDP drag all those wonderful social programs that Liberals love down the toilet with disastrous corporate tax raises and Bob Rae-esque spending promises, neither of which can be afforded as we recover from the worst recession since the Great Depression?

It really is far past time they start to ask whether a vote for the Liberal party is in fact a vote for Jack Layton. The extreme left elements of the Liberal party are already leaving the deflating big red tent in droves to bolster the wind in Jack Layton's sails. All those blue Liberals out there really need to look in the mirror and ask whether they can afford sticking around to see an NDP led coalition.

The blue Liberals can't kid themselves any longer. While Ignatieff has been deceptive on this front, Jack Layton has made no secret of his goal of a coalition since day one of the campaign. If the polls turn true to the NDP, the economy of Canada and everything connected to it -- and if you can't do the math that means literally everything -- is in jeopardy.

So, blue Liberals... what say you?

Are you going to go down with the sinking ship?

Or are you going to be the bigger man/woman and responsibly vote for a party that will keep the NDP's hands off the economy and out of our pockets?

You know the Liberal party is not going to pull out of this nosedive. Are you really willing to let the country go down with your party?

A vote for Iggy is a vote for... Jack?

How often have we heard the Liberals cry that a vote for the NDP is a vote for the Conservatives? That scare tactic is most certainly about to die a horrific death.

Polls are showing NDP support clearly blazing upwards. We have two polls (LaPresse and Ekos) both stating the NDP have taken first place in Quebec with Nanos' latest numbers showing the NDP surging not only in Quebec but also in a three-way dead heat in Atlantic Canada and overtaking the Liberals in both the Prairies and BC.

Nobody can downplay or understate the significance of this turn of events.

I cannot see the Liberals old-school scare tactic used against NDP supporters working this time around. Only die-hard Liberals (and not even all of them) are impressed by Michael Ignatieff. NDP supporters certainly aren't impressed with Ignatieff's support of the invasion of Iraq and his right-winger in a left-winger cloak fakery.

With the Liberal Party's numbers clearly shifting downwards right across the country (with the exception of Ontario so far) there is no chance regionally speaking that NDP supporters are going to switch over to the Liberals now to "stop Harper" as it were. They most certainly are going to be buoyed at the prospect of Jack Layton finally getting the traction they have all longed to see for years.

The NDP need only rise 4.6% in the national polling to overtake the Liberals. And considering that there are ten days to the election and the NDP have clearly risen more than that amount in the past five days, all bets are off.

Jack Layton has had no qualms discussing his desire for a coalition government. If the NDP are able to sap away enough Liberal seats, that would put the NDP in the power position as the official Opposition party. In a coalition government, that would mean one thing: Prime Minister Jack Layton.

Can you think of any other title in the world that would be as likely to scare the pants off of every blue Liberal in Canada? I think not.

It's still a long shot. And we all know that with ten days left in this election anything can happen. But if the NDP continues it's upwards trajectory across the map, the Liberals are most certainly going to become the also-ran in the coalition dream. And blue Liberals don't hate Stephen Harper enough to risk a socialist government with a separatist party holding the strings.

Could it be that we'll soon be hearing the phrase, "A vote for Ignatieff is a vote for Layton?"

Christmas Has Come Early... Thank You, Iggy

Michael Ignatieff has finally and outrightly confirmed it: if the Conservatives get a minority, the Liberal, NDP and Bloc parties will vote them down and form a coalition government.

Not a formal coalition. Just an informal coalition.

Got that?

I'm sure the Conservatives -- who have kept the powder dry and haven't really been on an advertising blitz yet -- got that loud and clear. And I'm also sure Canadians will not be impressed by the word games. The Conservatives now have been given their opening to confirm to Canadians that what they've been saying all along is true, all wrapped up in a bow.

So... Conservative war room... Christmas has come early.

Go get 'em! :-)

New Liberal Attack Ads: the "You Had An Option, Sir" moment of this Election!

I really hope somebody in the Harper camp reads this...

Obviously a lot of us know how the Liberals have released an ad on TV that misattributes a quote made by National Citizens Coalition president David Somerville to Stephen Harper. The Conservatives are of course demanding the Liberals withdraw the ads.

WORST MOVE EVER!!!!

What is the Conservative camp thinking? This is the absolute perfect opportunity to absolutely destroy the Liberals! This IS the, "You had an option, sir" moment of this campaign... and the Conservatives are just going to leave it sitting on the table?!?!

First of all, the Liberals are spending money on these ads. Whatever dollars they have going towards these ads will not be going to other ads.

But secondly and more importantly, they are buying the rope on which they can be hung! There is ample evidence that this quote is an outright lie. All the Conservatives have to do is let this ad play for a few days and then release their own ad that:

1. Shows who the quote is really from and proves that the Liberal ad is an out and out lie.
2. Shows how Ignatieff and the Liberals refused to pull the ad when it was proven to be a lie (you know... they had an option?).
3. Shows to every Canadian just how low the Liberals are willing to go.

Think about it! It is absolutely impossible for that quote to be validated. And so long as the public finds out that the Liberals have been lying to the public in that ad, the Conservatives can paint the entire Liberal campaign with the same brush. If this weakens Liberal support even a little -- and the NDP is starting to draw off Liberal support -- the Conservatives can make their majority and they don't even have to go up in the polls.

I really hope the Conservatives change course in trying to get these ads pull. This could be the perfect check-mate to this whole chess game of a campaign. Right now they are missing a golden opportunity to end this campaign once and for all.

Elections Canada is a disgrace... Marc Mayrand must resign!

I have had enough of the BS in this election.

Everyday I read the inane rantings of people who accuse the Conservatives of nonsense that always proves to be either taken out of context, overblown or an outright fabrication. This has been going on since the Conservatives came to power; faux scandals like Wafergate, body bags, H1N1, door knobs, logos, even the word "NOT".

But the crap that Elections Canada has pulled -- and continues to pull -- is simply disgraceful!

This whole Guelph ballot box fiasco is truly disgusting. It's bad enough that Elections Canada is allowing a non-preauthorized polling station to continue collecting ballots against Elections Canada rules... that's bad enough. But to also have no scrutineers and to have partisan literature present within the polling facility and still allow that polling station to be counted as legitimate and untainted? It's unbelievable!

I have just written the following letter to Elections Canada (I invite you to do the same here) to object over this absolutely ridiculous decision by Elections Canada to ignore its own rules:

It is with great disappointment that I have come aware of the situation taking place in Guelph in respects to the challenged special polling station. It is particularly upsetting that Elections Canada is ignoring it's own mandate and it's own rules in allowing the votes cast at an illegitimate polling station to be included amongst valid votes by citizens respecting the rule of law.

This is not the first time unauthorized polling stations (notably at Universities) have been contested. In the past, polling stations that did not comply with the rules of Election Canada were considered invalid and thus sealed and uncounted.

A poll must be pre-registered and pre-authorized by Elections Canada. If it is not, it is simply a person with a box collecting pieces of paper that resemble ballots. A non-authorized polling station does not have any authenticity in an election. That alone should discount the ballots collected.

Additionally, without scrutineers to ensure the voting process is conducted according to Elections Canada rules, a vote cannot be considered untainted. A polling station might as well be set up in a candidate's office if no scrutineer is present. Scrutineers are the single most important control measure that Canadians have to ensure fair and accurate elections.

Additionally, the fact that campaign literature was present at the voting location -- expressly forbidden by Elections Canada -- further justifies the ballots collected to be nullified. Campaign literature or advertisements within a polling station is a clear violation of the rules of Elections Canada.

It is bad enough that one set of rules is ignored by Elections Canada. But when two or three or more sets of rules are ignored, one might as well dismantle Elections Canada altogether since it clearly does not believe the rules it enacts are of any importance.

I call on the Chief Electoral Officer to either follow the rules and make sure they are being enforced or to release a statement that denotes those rules will no longer be enforced. Selective enforcement of electoral rules is a clear affront to the entire democratic process. I look forward to your response.

It's time that Elections Canada meets its mandate or it tears itself down. Either way, after prosecuting the Conservatives over the In-And-Out BS scandal while the NDP's were actually given permission to do the same... after the media was leaked of Elections Canada's imminent assault on the Conservative Party HQ... and after Marc Mayrand investigated his own freakin' self (!!!!) over the leaks... and now Elections Canada ignoring it's own rules and even showing another clear double-standard, Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand has failed in his mandate for the last time.

Marc Mayrand is a disgrace to Canadian democracy and must resign as Chief Electoral Officer of Canada.

Play With Fire, Get Burned

By now, we are all aware of the leaking of the Auditor General's report on G8/G20 spending. We of course have the blowhards on both sides crying foul.

The lefties are convinced this report is a damning picture of what the Harper government is about and just another scandal proving so. Not that they ever needed proof of this; they've swallowed every faux scandal that has been thrown out since Harper took power, practically all of which proved to be false.

The righties are saying this report is completely worthless. As a draft report, it is not the final findings of the Auditor General and thus cannot be taken at face value. Mind you, even the Auditor General Sheila Fraser herself has cautioned the public against accepting this report and should wait until the real report is presented in Parliament.

Now, this whole brouhaha doesn't change my opinion of who to vote for. The timing and means of this release (along with the AG's warnings) tells me this is at best dirty politics by the Opposition and at worst outrightly criminal. That kind of move just affirms my opinion of Ignatieff as nothing more than an opportunist and Layton as the pompous hypocrite he is. After all, while the Contempt of Parliament finding by the Opposition causing this election is questionable, the releasing of an AG report outside of Parliament is by legislation a reason for a charge of Contempt.

But the truth of the matter is actually much more simple: if you play with fire, you're going to get burned.

Many Canadians -- including a slew of bloggers in the Blogging Tories blogroll -- were unimpressed at the scope of spending for the G8/G20 summit. The largesse was unfathomable and quite simply reckless. If you don't think so, just look at how many Blogging Tories are screaming from their roofs over Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton's spending promises.

As any true fiscal conservative knows, the bigger the government initiative, the greater chance for waste and/or error. And also the bigger the chance for pork-belly spending. Whether or not this erroneously leaked report -- I won't call it the AG's report since it was not released by and is not being endorsed by her -- turns out to be a true representation of her findings, the simple fact is that this is simply a matter of the chickens coming home to roost.

Maybe Harper should use this as a lesson and take a long look in the mirror asking himself what he really believes in regarding government spending.

But I -- and I'm sure many people who warned about the G8/G20 spending -- also can't help but say... I told you so.

Pat Martin: The MP Who'd Ignore You

It was really interesting to watch the videos that Hunter at Climbing Out of the Dark assembled showing the disgraceful antics of the Opposition members last week during the witch hunt... er... Commons Committee pretending to investigate whether Bev Oda attempted to mislead Parliament. Discussions of Bev Oda's actions has become completely nauseating; during the committee NDP MP Pat Martin stated several times that how she operates is a "terrible way to conduct business."

Unfortunately for him, in accusing her he displayed how he chooses to deal with requests he doesn't like: he ignores them.

If you go to Hunter's video titled NDP MP Pat Martin Jumps The Shark and skip over to 7:25 you'll hear him describe what he would rather she have done stating, "Why didn't you just not sign it... you could have avoided all this controversy by letting it die... letting it gather dust... never deal with the damn thing."

Well, isn't that an interesting insight into the mind of Pat Martin?

I wonder what his constituents would say if they were to find out that when Pat Martin doesn't want to deal with requests of his office -- what for actual ministers is official government business -- he feels it acceptable to just ignore them?

His ridiculous and despicable antics aside, if you compare the methodology that Bev Oda employed in this situation -- a methodology that the Tories have shown to be standard practice -- to Pat Martin's preference of just ignoring requests made of the government, clearly Pat Martin is the one displaying a complete lack of professionalism.

He sure raised a stink in the committee about MP's not having the option of being silent or as he put it pleading the fifth (note to Mr. Martin: Canada doesn't have a fifth amendment). And yet he feels it acceptable for MP's to ignore requests?

If this is how the NDP would run government, thank God they never will.

Google Blocking Blogging Tories?

Somebody mentioned this on another blog and I looked into it myself. Sure enough, Google is blocking access to a few Blogging Tories blogs. Doing a Google search I found they had a harmful site block on:

Blogging Tories

Stephen Taylor

Small Dead Animals

All on the same day. Coincidence? I don't believe in coincidence.

Seems like the official Lame-O-pposition supporters may be engaging in their typically petty games.

Is it really all that surprising?

Considering the media and the Opposition slammed Helena Guergis over criminal culpability until the Conservatives had no choice but to expel her only to have the same hypocrites come back and criticize the government for doing exactly what they wanted, is it really all that surprising that we are now finding out that the famous "meltdown" which started this whole fiasco is now being shown to have no legs?

The two-faced nature of Canadian politics -- both from the NDP/Liberal/Bloc coalition and the media -- is ridiculously out of control. And the media just pretends it isn't involved half the time in stirring up the storms of controversy just to watch them go.

I find it hard to believe that after all this time that security footage is only now being brought to light. At best this reeks of lazy journalism while at worst it is gotcha journalism to the extreme. I miss the day that reporters actually researched rather than just throwing out opinion pieces, rumors and innuendo.