If you check the Election Fever Meter to the right on the National Newswatch site, you'll see that it's now at 90%. Could it have anything to do with Jean LaPierre's scoop on CTV's Question Period today?
The Prince of Darkness had his doubts as to the likelihood of Jean LaPierre having an inside track to Chretiens' thoughts, but doesn't dispute the idea that now is the time to go.
If it's true, that's all Dion would need - Chretien's blessing.
I think election time is upon us.
Too bad, because then C-484 will die.
33 comments:
This bill could be an election issue, as is the crime bill and the Afghan mission. This will not be a one issue campaign, other than the issue of Dion's leadership.
The Senate better get that bill passed ASAP, or soft on crime and the need for senate reform will also be hot topics.
Is it true that Dion can't get candidates in Quebec, male or female.
Yeah, because Chretien has so much experience as opposition leader in a minority parliament against a united conservative party!
Joel-Denis Bellevance had the same story in yesterday's "La Presse", so I guess maybe Warren is not quite so much in the loop as he thought. Oh dear ....
Dion gets the Ok from above.
Do you mean the folks at Power Corp?
If Dion wants to associate himself (again) with Chretien, I say, all power to him.
From the link JAD provided:
Selon M. Chrétien, M. Dion doit profiter des problèmes qu'éprouve le gouvernement Harper dans des dossiers tels que l'Afghanistan et l'affaire Mulroney-Schreiber.
You know, I still don't see how the M-S affair has negatively impacted the credibility of this government. I would say it is more of a stain on the so-called Ethics committee.
And then we have John McCallum spouting off about how the Liberals have to come in and fix all the problems that the Conservatives leave behind.
Wish someone would remind him that it was the people paying the so-called Health Tax in Ontario that balanced the books for the Liberals.
You don't suppose that Chretien's the guy pushing Dion off the lemming cliff do you?
All the better that Kinsella can plan McGuinty's takeover of the federal liberals.
I wonder what the real hidden Liberal agenda is?
All the better that Kinsella can plan McGuinty's takeover of the federal liberals.
How very, very interesting. And if you read Kinsella's blog, he says he's free in the fall. How convenient!
Dion couldn't get it done, so the Tories are doing it for him--releasing a fully costed Liberal counter-budget !
So all next week, John MacCallum et al will have to defend this hypothetical Grit deficit budget against the as yet unseen Flaherty balanced budget !
This is too funny. I just hope the media plays along with this upside down sequence of events.
Ardvark @6:31 is on the right track. The lieberal hidden agenda is to get power back in the control of Desmarias @Power Corp.
more like a 'shove' or a dare.....
"This will not be a one issue campaign, other than the issue of Dion's leadership."
huh? Either it is a one issue campaign, or it is not.
"...soft on crime and the need for senate reform will also be hot topics."
yes, please run on how Harper deliberately delayed the crime bills to a time when he thought he could make the most out of them. It is important people know he is not as concerned about our safety as he is about winning an election.
While you are at it, make sure constitutional reform is right up there on your list of priorities. I mean, that worked out so well for the conservatives last time they were running this country.
I have a new name for liberal supporters who twist and turn everything PMSH has done into failure to act. They are PRETZELS.
It is important people know he is not as concerned about our safety as he is about winning an election.
Right Gayle
Of course, whenever the Liberals announce a plan, like Steffi's well thought out spend it like you stole it proposal, they are doing so out of the goodness of their hearts.
It has absolutely nothing to do with trying to win an election....
===
Platty - you linked to your post which linked to an Ivison column where he recites conservative talking points.
Clever.
Of course that had nothing to do with my point, but that just makes it much more obvious you are unable to address my point.
Changing the subject is what con supporters do. God forbid they actually have to face the facts.
of course gayle ... Ivison's op ed is based on Dion's ideas, but don't let that burst your bubble.
You were conspicuous in your absence gayle...
I wonder what happened to Liberal Supporter?
No silly little anon - the column is based on conservative talking points.
Nice try though.
But while we are on the subject, do you have any idea where the money to pay for the increases in incarceration rates, the increases in court costs and all the extra prisons that we are going to need in order to put effect to the crime package is going to come from?
I cannot help but notice the fact the cons have yet to cost that one out...
Try this on for size gayle:
The new system is supposed to be a deterrant...not a 'welcome home mat."
yes I noticed libsupporter's absence as well...no one left to support?
hahahahahah
silly little anon
"But while we are on the subject, do you have any idea where the money to pay for the increases in incarceration rates, the increases in court costs and all the extra prisons that we are going to need in order to put effect to the crime package is going to come from?"
Why don't you ask Dion? He and the Liberal's voted in favor of the crime bills in the house. So Dion must be adding the costs you mentioned into the Liberal spending predictions, in addition to the new spending promises, no?
The last election the Liberal's continually ranted about a $50 billion black hole due to the Conservative promises.
Kinda sucks when your on the receiving end, eh Gayle.
Of course we have Dion and McCallum telling us the cupboards are bare. And Dion has promised billions more in spending despite that. So that leaves three options.
1. Run a defecit.
2. Raise taxes.
3. Make warm and fuzzy promises you know you won't keep. (1993 Red Book also mentioned eliminating poverty, better health care,etc.).
I'm guessing the Liberal's are going with #3.
"The new system is supposed to be a deterrant...not a 'welcome home mat.""
Ahhh yes, if only it worked that way. Too bad for you and Harper it simply does not. If punishment deterred crime, no one in Texas would ever murder anyone. Instead....
Not to mention the mounds of evidence that increasing punishment does not deter crime, and the complete dearth of evidence suggesting it does. So yes, this is going to cost us, and I for one would like to know how much.
Paul - perhaps you are not aware of the complete tough on crime platform supported by Harper. There is much more to it than what has already passed. They propose to eliminate statutory release, cut back parole eligibility, increase sentences for other crimes, repeal the YCJA, replace the existing prison system with "super prisons" and create more criminal offences.
Perhaps before they start pointing fingers at the liberals they should consider looking after their own platform costs.
As for the con talking point that Dion will send us into a deficit, as you should know the liberals are the party that took us out of deficit budgets by fixing Mulroney's mistakes. Perhaps you are also aware of Mr. Flaherty's record when it comes to deficit budgets. Haven't you noticed they are already getting bad press over this (Ivison aside).
If the cons really want to run on this, best of luck to them. They are going to have to explain how the cupboard can be bare while Quebec got a huge influx of cash and a corresponding tax break.
As for the liberals, I will wait for them to cost out their own platform, thank you very much. I do not think the party that blames Linda Keen for their mistakes, claims anyone who is concerned about torture is in league with the Taliban and that the party that tried to fast track the age of consent bill is putting youth at risk of sexual exploitation is hardly credible.
Not to mention the mounds of evidence that increasing punishment does not deter crime, and the complete dearth of evidence suggesting it does.
Are you suggesting there's evidence that decreasing punishment will deter crime?
I'd be interesting in hearing about it.
There's certainly good evidence that the death penalty does not deter murder. That may be because a lot of murders are not premeditated.
As for the con talking point that Dion will send us into a deficit, as you should know the liberals are the party that took us out of deficit budgets by fixing Mulroney's mistakes.
As someone who claims not to be a Liberal flack, you're quite familiar with their talking points.
The Liberals took us out of deficit budgets built up from the both, first, the Trudeau, and continued by, the Mulroney era, mainly because the country was being discussed as a banana republic by financial publications outside of our borders.
Chretien finally acted, not in his first term, but later, reputedly after pressure from Paul Martin, to do the right thing. I'm starting to wonder about Paul Martin's credentials on this, after his disasterous "hair-on-fire" term as PM. I suspect someone else coached JC to do the right thing.
The Libs correctly reduced the deficit by increasing taxes, and reducing spending. Very conservative of them. Unfortunately, after the deficit was defeated, they continued to find new ways to spend the huge amounts of cash coming in from overtaxation.
The CPC continued this "strategy" in their first budget.
"As for the con talking point that Dion will send us into a deficit, as you should know the liberals are the party that took us out of deficit budgets by fixing Mulroney's mistakes. Perhaps you are also aware of Mr. Flaherty's record when it comes to deficit budgets. Haven't you noticed they are already getting bad press over this (Ivison aside)."
Glad you brought that up. Flaherty and Harris eliminated a huge deficit left by Bob Rae(now a Liberal), and Flaherty balanced the books every year except the final one, which included the effects of Sars, Mad-Cow,trouble in the forest industry(in large part due to the federal Liberals and the softwood lumber dispute.) Of course many people got sucked into McGuinty's line about the size of the deficit, ignoring the fact many items never before included in the governments deficits were added by McGuinty to attain maximum brownie points in an election.
It's ironic that during Flaherty's time as Ontario finance Minister, Ontario created hundreds of thousands of jobs including the automotive sector, and since McGuinty took power those jobs are now being lost. And it's going to get worse with big increases in electricity rates soon to come.
What's most notable is Flaherty balanced the books at a time when the Federal Liberal's slashed billions in transfers to Ontario.
"Paul - perhaps you are not aware of the complete tough on crime platform supported by Harper. There is much more to it than what has already passed. They propose to eliminate statutory release, cut back parole eligibility, increase sentences for other crimes, repeal the YCJA, replace the existing prison system with "super prisons" and create more criminal offences."
Actually Gayle, I am aware of it and fully support it. It amazes me that Liberal's see no problems spending money on injection sites for addicts, but cry about spending money to jail those who have broken the law.
Here's an idea. Don't break the law, and you don't end up in jail. If you are released on parole, don't commit another crime.
gayle...too many of your 'lib talking points' are spin.
The one I will address is the comment about raising the age of consent. In case you didn't know(react,react) raising the age of consent has the purpose of protecting kids from 40 yr old pigs.
You have a problem with that?
Or will you use Carstairs spin , and claim it will victimise the girls on the streets? The age of consent law will go after the pigs, not the kids.How does that put them at risk for sexual exploitation?
Oh wait I just re-read your last comment...are the Libs blaming Keen for the mistakes?...they should ..they ignored the auditor general when she was trying to address the problem, and yes the Libs lowered the age of consent,thus putting kids at risk for sexual expoloitation.
I don't get the rest of your spin 'cuz the Libs are more concerned about Taliban terrorist than the people they terrorise.
Are ya dizzy from your own spin gayle?
silly little anon
"Are you suggesting there's evidence that decreasing punishment will deter crime?"
No.
I am asking for the cost of the tough on crime package. Last time Harper mentioned any costs it was in the hundreds of billions. I simply believe it is fair game since the cons are so concerned about the costs of Dion's promises. One wonders why they are so afraid to cost out their own.
Silly little anon - I actually support raising the age of consent. So do the liberals - so much so that they offered to fast track this bill a year ago. Harper did not consent to this because he wanted to use this bill as leverage in the election. That is why it took him so long to allow it to go through the House (twice I might add, since he killed it after it passed the first time).
That's rich gayle...considering it was the Libs that lowered the age of consent in the first place.And it was the Libs demanding ammendments in the first place that held this up.
But gayle you will spin until your dizzy...no sense pointing this out to you.
"I am asking for the cost of the tough on crime package. Last time Harper mentioned any costs it was in the hundreds of billions. I simply believe it is fair game since the cons are so concerned about the costs of Dion's promises. One wonders why they are so afraid to cost out their own."
Riiiiiiight! Wanna provide a link to back up that bogus statement? I'll provide one for you. Using Liberal math are you? Interesting to note money is being taken away from rehab programs to pay for the maintenance of the old prisons.
"Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day estimated it could cost $225 million to $245 million over five years to build new prison cells for the growing number of inmates that are expected to enter prison if the government's plans to bring in longer sentences pass into law.
Mr. Head, who elaborated on the problems at an all-party House of Commons committee this spring, said that money being diverted to maintain deteriorating facilities is detracting from rehabilitation programs for offenders.
"As the buildings get older, the maintenance costs go up, and this is money we have to find from within the organization to deal with that," he said.
"The more we divert the money to deal with the rust-out issues, the less opportunity we have to deal with the program and intervention needs of the offenders."
So the answer is to spend more to build new prisons, rather than money to repair the current prisons. And where does the money for the rehabilitation programs come from?
It is interesting that in the report on Canadian prisons that was recently released, the easiest thing to fix was the lack of funds for rehabilitation programs. Last I heard, topping up funding for those programs was not on the top of the cons wish list.
Over 200 million in order to cover the costs of the new prison cells for the influx of prisoners expected with the new legislation (so much for your deterrence theory anon).
And then there are the costs associated with the courts (more trials, more lawyers, more judges, more courtrooms...), new staff for the prisons, more police, maintinaing the new prisons and the increase of prisoners due to the more stringent parole.
So 250 million or so one time expenses does not even begin to cover the ongoing expenses.
See how this works?
"And it was the Libs demanding ammendments in the first place that held this up."
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The liberals offered to pass this legislation, as is, a year ago. The cons held it up.
"So the answer is to spend more to build new prisons, rather than money to repair the current prisons. And where does the money for the rehabilitation programs come from?
It is interesting that in the report on Canadian prisons that was recently released, the easiest thing to fix was the lack of funds for rehabilitation programs. Last I heard, topping up funding for those programs was not on the top of the cons wish list."
I guess you missed the whole point of the post. Look at it this way. You are driving an old junker for a car. It is continually breaking down. At some point it is more cost effective to buy a new car then keep replacing the old one. And the prisons did not begin deteriorating when Harper took power. Exactly what did the Liberal's do to rectify the situation Gayle.
As for your most recent bogus statement about Conservative's not giving funding priority:
"Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day noted that funding was increased - by a total of $102 million over two years - in the last federal budget for problem areas like mental health services. A panel of experts is currently reviewing the correctional system and Day said he'll wait for its recommendations, expected within a few weeks, before deciding how much more money may be required."
Keep coming with your Liberal talking points Gayle. A quick google search wil show it for what it is. Liberal spin.
That is an old quote there Paul (not that you included a link so I am not sure where you got it from). That report has been out for a while. I have read it. Have you?
I do not question the need for infrastructure repairs, nor do I suggest the liberals did enough. Clearly they did not. In fact, there is an article in today's Edmonton Journal outlining the fact we spend billions of dollars a year to administer prison sentences, and only millions of dollars a year for prevention. That is a flaw that has been part of the liberal crime plan for too long, although during their last term in government they were making changes to support rehabilitation over custody, particularly wiht respect to young offenders. The conservatives are moving us backwards from that. It does not take a mathematical genius to know that increasing the number of people in prison, and increasing the amount of time they spend in prison is going to increase the amount of money needed to fund prisons. I have still yet to hear anyone tell me where that money is going to come from.
And Paul, there is a big difference between having to repair, renovate or perhaps rebuild a prison or two, and having to build new, bigger prisons in order to accomodate more prisoners. Nor have you attempted to account for all the other additional expenses, though I suppose it does not assist your argument.
Post a Comment