Why was there so much opposition to Elizabeth May entering the debates? Go to the 6:30 minute mark in the video below and see her endorsement of Dion and the Liberals. I feel for the Green candidates who are committed to their party and the environment, yet have to run under a leader encouraging voters to support a rival party. Last week she encouraged voters to vote strategically to block the Conservatives. Can anyone name a riding where voting strategically would lead to a Green victory? Clearly May is the Liberal candidate in Central Nova and is putting her own seat ahead of the interests of her candidates. -Darryl
Just like the last two elections, we are back to the Hidden Agenda and George Bush comparisons as Liberals go negative in their attack ads. Ironic given how Dion criticizes the Conservatives for "spending millions to attack his image and policies" and also not having the maturity to discuss the issues seriously. These type of ads are not surprising when your brand is tainted by the sponsorship scandal and culture of entitlement, your leader is seen as universally weak and your carbon tax platform appeals to nobody. I think Canadians are going to see through these usual attacks this time around. For the record, the quotes from Paul Martin below directly question the Liberal statement that they kept our nation out of Iraq. This ad also makes me question where Liberals stand on Afghanistan, a mission they initially committed Canadian troops to. -Darryl
Quotes from Paul Martin on the Iraq War:
Canada's position was Saddam Hussein should be disarmed. Now, to be quite honest, I had a lot of difficulty understanding how he was going to be disarmed without being replaced.
Ottawa Citizen (April 28, 2003)
I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible. There's a huge need for front-line medical professionals. There's a huge need for policing. And there's a huge need for infrastructure rebuilding.
On sending humanitarian aid to Iraq.
North Bay Nugget (April 30, 2003)
The fact that now we know well that there is proliferation of nuclear weapons and that many of the weapons that Saddam Hussein had, for example, we do not know where they are, so that means the terrorists have access to all that.
Globe and Mail (May 11, 2004)
"I mean if there are going to be missiles that are going off and there are going to be going off over Canadian airspace whether we want it or not, no I don't think that is acceptable. I think that we want to be at the table."
CTV Question Period, April 27, 2003
"I don't think there is any doubt, if there ever was . . . that Saddam Hussein does have weapons of mass destruction. Biological weapons that they discovered were very clear evidence of not only the fact that he had them, but that he had lied and that he is continuing to lie.”
Harper is a political control freak. This genus is convinced that one succeeds in politics by being ruthlessly on message, all the time, with no failures.
So Harper has carefully screened his politicians from the public (that is, voters), including his cabinet ministers. Nobody seems to have permission to speak to the media without Harper`s say so. Even voters are shielded from potential MPs during elections, in case they blurt out something which does not fit with Harper`s deliberate, minimalist political agenda.
Up to now this muzzling of his MPs and cabinet ministers has succeeded.
But recently, Harper himself has found himself in hot water, in Quebec and elsewhere, with his comments on the cuts to culture. He prodded a beehive, and is being stung with reduced polling.
This leads to the question: is Harper himself now being fitted for a muzzle?
Let`s see if the Harper muzzle is colour coordinated with his warm, fluffy sweaters …
Local Media Coverage of the Campaign in Newmarket-Aurora:
Here is some of the press coverage about what is going on in the riding of Newmarket-Aurora. I also have a few articles for those wondering what Belinda Stronach has been doing during this campaign. For the most part she has been doing a lot of great things outside of politics and is primarily focused on her international and community charitable work. She is also working at Magna - York Region's largest employer and part of the automobile industry that is facing some challenges right now. October 10, this riding will be featured on CBC National as part of the "Your Vote" segment. The debates in this riding are October 6, 7, and 8. Those debates combined with a potential visit by the Prime Minister will likely determine the outcome of the race here. Electionprediction.org is still calling Newmarket-Aurora Conservative with Democratic Space calling it "too close to call". -Darryl
NDP tied with Liberals, Toronto should vote "strategically" Conservative
Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party seem to be falling without any indication of a floor in support. Today's Toronto Star poll now has the NDP and the Liberals tied. They are also reporting that the NDP is surging in cities and that may cut into their former stronghold of Toronto. Gerard Kennedy must be sweating right now in a tight race against Peggy Nash. The Star poll also has Conservatives in majority territory before the English language debate where Harper is expected to do well against Dion as well Layton.
This is not a time to get cocky or to relax our efforts. October 14 is still 18 days away and it is crucial we work hard until this sale is closed. Having said that, this should be good motivation for Conservative and NDP troops while at the same time completely demoralizing for Liberal volunteers. Liberals are trailing in most swing ridings including in Newmarket-Aurora right now.
The longer this campaign goes, the stronger the support for the Conservatives, Greens, NDP and the Bloc it seems. Strategic voting may be tough for the left now as Jack Layton surges. Who do "progressives" unite behind at this point?
I recommend a different kind of strategic voting to avoid getting let down like last time when Liberals abstained from voting 42 times. If I lived in the city of Toronto right now, I would be looking at these numbers and saying a Conservative majority is likely if not probable. Under those circumstances would you not want to have a representative in the government party? Voters in Don Valley West (vote John Carmichael) should especially think long and hard about their vote this time. I have no authority to hand out cabinet posts obviously, however if I was a betting man I would gamble that any Conservative who gets elected in the 416 will go to cabinet. There is no reason to fear a Conservative majority, but if I was a resident of Toronto I might fear a majority government with the entire city of Toronto in oppositon. Anyone heard from Danny Williams lately? I think it is time to consider some blue representation in Toronto. 416 voters could always hold their Conservative MP accountable if they feel Toronto is not getting a fair deal. I guarantee you a Toronto MP in caucus will get more done for cities than a Liberal MP caught in a leadership race and forced to abstain in order to avoid another election they aren't prepared to fight. I don't know who will finish second between Dion's Liberals and Layton's NDP. I do know Harper will be the next Prime Minister unless a major gaffe takes place over the next 18 days. Majority or minority? Rigth now it is too close to call, but GTA residents should consider voting strategically for the Conservatives!
The choice in Newmarket-Aurora is also clear. We need a voice at the table. Lois Brown is that strong voice!
I hope I do not come across as over confident, I just want voters to think about how they cast their vote given these current poll numbers. The GTA is important to this country and there are several issues around the 905 and in the city that the government needs to address. For current Conservative supporters, please do not look at these polls and come to the conclusion that your vote is not needed. We need every vote we can get in Newmarket-Aurora and throughout the GTA. I hope we get at least one seat in Toronto proper as well this time. Keep working hard!!!!!
Highlights from Last night's Obama vs. McCain debate
If there was any parts that will be remembered from last night's debate, I think it will be these portions:
At the end of the day I think both candidates performed well. I am looking forward to the VP debates (even though I will be watching the Canadian ones first) as well as the next debate between the two presidential candidates. The economy is now far and away the biggest issue in both the American and Canadian campaigns. I look forward to debates on those issues. -Darryl
Some of us were focused on the Canadian campaign, but if you missed the American debates last night here is the full version available via YouTube. Personally I thought it was a draw. To be honest that is not good for McCain as foreign policy is suppose to be his advantage. He is also trailing Obama again following some gaffes from Sarah Palin during her first media interviews. -Darryl
What is the Liberal Hidden Agenda? Conference call leaked...
Not sure who is responsible for these ads, but I think they are important. An internal conference call regarding the Liberal platform was leaked to several Conservative blogs. The transcripts have resulted in the following ads not associated with the Conservative Party officially. I first saw them posted on Stephen Taylor's blog. -Darryl
The Globe & Mail sums up the Liberal predicament in today’s issue:
“It's a strategy that the struggling Stéphane Dion may have no choice but to copy – abandon the script that was designed to win the election and replace it with something aimed at keeping the party whole for next time. “If you threw the right scare into people about Stephen Harper, and Dion was the guy leading that charge, then he could probably climb back out of hole and may get over 80 seats,” said Greg Lyle, a pollster with the firm Innovative Research Group, Inc. “That would be a win right now.””
How can Dion find the winning issue, and prevent a massacre of Liberals in the election, which is a scant two weeks away?
The Cat’s suggestion would do it.
How?
Change tactics, change issues, and wrap a ferocious fight against Harper in the next two weeks around one simple, over-arching, unifying concept.
And that concept is that?
That Harper and his Tories will sacrifice the soul of Canada if they win a majority.
We can see clearly that Harper is in reality a Tory-manufactured Canadian political subprime mortgage disaster just waiting to happen.
Check out what Harper has written in the past. How he wants to strangle the life out of a strong central government in Canada, cutting the revenues, scrapping programs, reducing the federal government to just a handful of powers (defence, banker for the premiers, not much else). One point really needs emphasising. Trudeau commented caustically about Joe Clark that he really wanted to reduce the federal government’s powers and role so much that it became the head waiter to the provinces.
Well, Harper’s plans are to go much further than Joe Clark wanted to.
What Harper wants to do is reduce the federal government – the heart of Canada – to the role of banker to the premiers.
He wants to reduce the money used for nation-building, and divert taxes paid by Canadians to the premiers, for them to use as they wish. Harper, as banker to the premiers, wants to give the premiers blank cheques, and when they have filled them in, to funnel our hard-earned income, paid by us as taxes, into the coffers of the premiers. In doing so, Harper wants to subvert centuries of political development in Canada, scrap the role of a strong, nation-building and nation-preserving central government, and let the premiers run amok.
Is this what Canadians really want?
Well, it is what they will get if Harper wins a majority.
Dion can turn this hapless election around if he listens to the Cat.
Go for Harper’s jugular, Stephane. Use this central theme, and wrap everything around it. And press it hard, unrelenting, for the next two weeks: Harper and his Tories will sacrifice the soul of Canada if they win a majority.
How can you trust a man who wishes to shrink Canada?
We saw vintage Harper in action this week with his naked attack on culture. Give Harper his due: he showed us exactly what kind of things he will do for four years if he wins a majority government in a few weeks time.
He will shrink the federal government of Canada by cutting, cutting, and cutting two things: the funds inflow (by reducing taxes or handing federal funds over to the premiers), and by reducing programs which unite this diverse country.
Harper has not changed his views since he wrote the firewall letter to the Alberta premier. He still believes that the central government is a bad thing, and that there is no need for a strong federal government with strong federal programs.
His view of the country is that of a village politician: small, timid, and mean.
He will reduce the stature of the government by any means he can. And in so doing he will diminish Canada.
How can you trust this man to do what is needed to save the earth for future generations?
News reports yesterday showed the dimensions of the problem facing us: carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing, not levelling off. This means the blanket of greenhouse gases around our world is increasing, and therefore the earth’s surface will continue to heat up.
How serious is this problem? Lovelock, the man who gave us the concept of Gaia (earth as a self-regulating, interdependent system), has called it a threat to civilization as we know it.
Now, how is Harper dealing with climate change?
Dishonestly.
The Tory position is one of deception, one of manipulation of scientific facts, one of sleight of hand, and one of avoidance.
Contrast this with Dion’s approach. This sincere man has staked his future in politics on grappling with the environmental problem posed by global warming. He has come up with an environmental plan, the Green Shift, which goes much further in dealing with the threat to earth (and to our civilization) than any other party’s policies do.
And he has done so in an honest fashion.
So the question about Harper remains: How can we trust this man to deal honestly and effectively with the threat to our civilization posed by global warming?
The Bush plan to use $700 billion to staunch the bloodletting of financial institutions from the still falling housing market disaster, has run into problems, with even Republican Senators and Congress representatives balking (no doubt because they have received an earful from their constituents).
Why?
Partly because the Administration has done a terrible job of framing the debate. They have talked of markets, and credit and other things. And people are hurting, and not buying into what Bush’s boys are saying.
Jim Cramer has done a good job of pointing out how they have botched the framing job (Stephane Dion, perhaps you should read this?):
“Memo to Hank Paulson and everyone from the administration who is trying to get this plan passed, as well as Mr. Academic, Ben Bernanke: You are selling this plan all wrong. Here's what this plan is about: Keeping people in their homes. It is not about "liquidity." Here's what the plan is about: having the loans to send your kids to college, not "a freezing up of the credit markets."
Here's what the plan is about: being able to buy a new car with a car loan. It is not about trying to free up commercial paper.
Here's what the plan is about: making it so when you go to your ATM, there is cash. It is not about making sure banks are made whole from their own mortgage mistakes.
Here's what the plan is about: making it so you will not have to work two jobs to keep your house. It is not about the need to keep Libor down.
Here's what this plan is about: making sure unemployment does not skyrocket to 20% or 30%. It is not about freeing up capital for more overnight repos.
I listen to these tone-deaf proposers of the plan, and they are killing it. They are all about trying to explain how illiquid assets could be valued. They are not about trying to explain how if you ever want to have a shot of retiring ever again within your lifetime, you need to be with the plan.”
After a successful first week on the campaign trail, week 2 followed up nicely for us. Over the past two weeks we had some great weekend events that allowed us to begin focusing on the canvassing efforts where we will identify the vote and later do everything we can to get it out on election day. Lois Brown has been working steady for over two years knocking on doors. As a priority riding, national party has been very supportive by calling into the riding and confirming sign locations, recruiting volunteers and identifying support. Right now we have identified thousands of supporters, secured well over a thousand lawn sign requests and have a strong volunteer base to take us forward in the campaign. Those efforts are appreciated and could very well make the difference in this close riding.
-A clear win in the sign war. We will now refocus our efforts on canvassing while maintaining our advantage and continuing to field sign requests.
-I had a fun debate on John Taylor's new show on Rogers 10 against Chris Emanuel and Ed Chudak. Stephen Somerville also did a great job representing the Conservatives the following night.
-Finally computers are now in our office allowing us to fully utilize our CIMS database, the internet and modern technology.
-Wednesday at Coras - we had a volunteer rally and signed up several new volunteers to get involved. Many of those new volunteers are already playing large roles in our campaign.
-On Saturday we opened our Aurora headquarters on Yonge St. where Frank Klees, several municipal politicians, and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson showed up along with 200 supporters. The location is great from a visibility perspective and also gives us representation in both Newmarket and Aurora. In Newmarket we are located on the corner of Muluck and Bayview.
-Further modifications were being made to www.loisbrown.ca and we also launched a new way to communicate with our constituents through a site called www.askloisbrown.ca. Our online efforts continue through our use of email marketing, the internet, blogging and Facebook.
-Lois continues to attend community events going on in the riding. She participated in the Terry Fox Run and also the Heart and Stroke Foundation walk these past two weekends.
-Our first literature piece went out and should arrive in people's mail boxes over the next few days.
-Electionprediction.org is now calling Newmarket-Aurora for the Conservative Party! Democraticspace.com was calling this riding Conservative but has now placed it back in the "too close to call" column. Our own polling is consistent with these results.
-Nationally we picked up a 16 point lead over the Liberals. If these numbers continue, Newmarket-Aurora will be the first in the GTA to change colours. We want to be part of the trend moving blue support to the South and around the 416. Things are encouraging in Halton, Missisauga and other crucial 905 ridings. Don Valley West within the 416 remains "too close to call". I am hearing Gerard Kennedy and Justin Trudeau are in tough fights within their own ridings. Hopefully we can remain disciplined and allow the momentum to pick up going into the leadership debates where Harper is likely to show well in contrast to Mr. Dion.
-Local debates are set for October 6, 8 with Cardinal Carter high school and Rogers also doing debates in the first part of October. Debate prep continues.
-For those who were filmed for the CBC, my segment during the National will air on October 10, four days before the election. It should be some good national exposure for this crucial swing riding of Newmarket-Aurora.
-Our volunteer base remains committed and motivated to achieve victory. We fully expect our supporters will show up and vote, but turnout could be low overall on voting day.
As always we need to keep the pressure on. This is not the time to let up. We need to go hard right until October 14 to win this riding locally and to build on our minority government nationally. Please do not let the polls deter you from giving some extra time to the campaign. Like every campaign, we could always use more volunteers and money. Now is the time we need you more than ever! There are only 22 days (just over 3 weeks) left in this campaign! We are going to do all we can to make sure Lois Brown is elected to Ottawa and do our part to contribute to any gains the federal Conservatives make in this election campaign. I wish all readers the best of luck in their own local campaigns! -Darryl
I pushed recently for Dion and the Liberal leaders to start talks with the NDP and Greens (and Bloc, if they are willing), with the intent to form a minority Liberal government if the NDP and LPC together won more seats than the Tories did.
I heard nothing from Dion or any Liberal leader (Rae, Iggy, Martha, nobody).
Now Jack Layton has publicly indicated that he is willing to form a progressive front to avoid another rightwing Tory government:
“NDP Leader Jack Layton even left the door open to a coalition of sorts with the Liberals after the election if that's what it takes to stop the Conservatives from governing again. He hinted he would be willing to work with the Liberals if their combined number of seats in Parliament topped the Conservatives.”
Like others, I have called for the Liberal Party to announce well in advance of the election what it will be running on. I wanted the Liberals to put in front of voters a set of principles, of policies, which would make a strong case for voters to choose a Liberal majority government, rather than another Tory government.
I also believed that a properly constructed, well-thought out, and politically astute platform would steal the initiative away from the Tories, and give the Liberals a head start in the election. Instead, we were told to wait for the election; that the platform would be a good one; that the theme would be a Fairer, Richer, Greener Canada; that this would stir the hearts of voters and lead to a change of government.
What absolute twaddle.
We end up with an election well into its second week, with no stirring over-arcing principles, with a bland theme, and what seems to be a laundry list of policies …
What a wasted opportunity!
Have Liberals forgotten how to do politics?
Maybe we need to send our Liberal Party leaders back to school, to learn Politics 101. You do not become a government by acting like a bunch of middle-aged, uninmaginative shopkeepers.
Newmarket-Aurora debates set for Oct 6 and Oct 8; Prentice comes to riding
The Aurora Chamber of Commerce will hold it's all candidates debate on October 6 from 7-9 at Theatre Aurora. The Newmarket Chamber of Commerce will hold it's all candidates debate on October 8 from 7-9 at the Newmarket Theatre. Rogers Television will also hold a debate that will play periodically and be available "on demand" on local Rogers Channel 10 with John Taylor as moderator.
Industry Minister Jim Prentice also made a stop to our riding to talk about the economy. Local coverage from the Era Banner can be found here. His visit was followed up by Justice Minister Rob Nicholson who helped us open our Aurora campaign headquarters yesterday. Other ministers including Jim Flaherty, Stockwell Day, Peter Van Loan, Vic Toews, Gordon O'Connor and Health Minister Tony Clement have been to Newmarket-Aurora previously. I expect more to come soon as there is no doubt that Newmarket-Aurora is a targeted riding by the Conservative Party nationally. -Darryl
Electionprediction.org moves Newmarket-Aurora from "too close to call" to Conservative
Electionprediction.org is now calling this riding for the Conservative Party. This is huge because in the past this site has been very accurate (95%+). This is early to make this call and is likely a reflection of the national numbers and trends in the region. As volunteers though, we must continue to campaign like we are behind as it will still be a very close race. Don't let up Newmarket-Aurora! Having said that, this is encouraging news for the party and for Lois Brown with only a few weeks left to go in this campaign.
Democratic Space is currently projecting the following seat count: CPC 150 Liberal: 86 NDP: 30 Green: 0 BQ: 40
On that site, Newmarket-Aurora has moved back to "question mark" after being previously called Conservative.
A new poll from the CBC today has the Conservative Party with a 16 point lead over the Liberals. Clearly momentum is still with Harper (as well as May/Layton) as October 14 is coming very quickly.
The centre-left in Canadian politics is split between the Libs, Dippers and Greens, with the insurgent Greens under their charismatic leader Elizabeth May poaching votes from both of the bigger parties. In Quebec, the Bloc is further to the left than the Tories, so we could say the centre-left vote is split four ways there.
The centre-right is united under Harper’s Tories, although the centre of gravity of the ‘new’ Tories post-merger is a lot more to the right than it ever was.
But the Tories are threatening to win a majority government this time round.
What to do?
Dion should pre-empt the NDP and Green Party by coming out with policies this weekend which move the Liberal Party sharply to the left.
Take over the center-left with a vengeance; give progressive voters policies to vote for, not just the vacuous anti-Tory sentiments being uttered.
And make the move stunning, significant and lasting.
Tony Blair and his group of young Turks moved the Labour Party in Britain towards the centre, shedding the hardline leftwing policies of the past, and captured the government.
Stephane Dion should move the Liberal Party hard left, and effectively create a party which appeals to all centre-left voters.
If he does, he stands a chance to become prime minister of a minority government. If he does not make such a game-changing adaptation, his leadership of the Liberal Party can be measured in a few weeks or months.
Shakespeare was wrong: First, we should target the short sellers …
“The first thing we do,” Shakespeare wrote for one of his characters in Henry VI, “we must kill all the lawyers.”
Naturally, I don’t share his sentiment, but if anything needs killing right now in order to stop the global financial crisis, it is the act of short selling.
Bloomberg reports that certain major US pension funds have nipped some short selling in the bud by refusing to allow shares to be used for that purpose:
“Wachovia Corp. soared 59 percent, Citigroup Inc. added 19 percent and Bank of America Corp. jumped 12 percent, sending the KBW Bank Index to its biggest gain since July. Morgan Stanley erased a 46 percent tumble and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. recovered most of a 25 percent slide after the nation's three largest pension funds stopped loaning shares of the brokerages to investors betting on their declines.”
That’s the best financial years in the past month. When the next president gets round to finding out what went wrong and how to fix it, I would expect the almost unlimited pillaging which short sellers have been allowed to do will rank high amongst the list of culprits.
As one short seller put it:
“``Short sellers are a very important part of the ecosystem of our financial markets,'' said Angel, a professor at Georgetown's McDonough School of Business in Washington. ``The same way that lions go after a herd, they go after the weaker animals. The shorts will pick on a company where there's a legitimate controversy over its valuation.''”
Of course, that is self-justification. Short sellers have plundered the currencies of countries, wreaking havoc; many were Americans. It is almost poetic justice that short selling has caused so much harm to so many American investors these past few weeks; talk about the boomerang effect!
Let's start at the beginning (what is short selling), and then look at what short sellers have been doing in the past few months.
Wikipedia has a good article on short selling – it has a long history:
“Short selling has been a target of ire since at least the eighteenth century when England banned it outright. It was perceived as a magnifying effect in the violent downturn in the Dutch tulip market in the seventeenth century.
The term "short" was in use from at least the mid-nineteenth century. It is commonly understood that "short" is used because the short seller is in a deficit position with his brokerage house.
Short sellers were blamed for the Wall Street Crash of 1929.[citation needed] Regulations governing short selling were implemented in the United States in 1929 and in 1940. Political fallout from the 1929 crash led Congress to enact a law banning short sellers from selling shares during a downtick; this was known as the uptick rule, and was in effect until 2007. President Herbert Hoover condemned short sellers and even J. Edgar Hoover said he would investigate short sellers for their role in prolonging the Depression. Legislation introduced in 1940 banned mutual funds from short selling (this law was lifted in 1997). A few years later, in 1949, Alfred Winslow Jones founded a fund (that was unregulated) that bought stocks while selling other stocks short, hence hedging some of the market risk, and the hedge fund was born.[3] Some typical examples of mass short-selling activity are during "bubbles", such as the Dot-com bubble.[citation needed] At such periods, short-sellers sell hoping for a market correction.”
But what exactly is short selling? Again fromWikipedia:
“To profit from the stock price going down, short sellers can borrow a security and sell it, expecting that it will decrease in value so that they can buy it back at a lower price and keep the difference. The short seller owes their broker, who usually in turn has borrowed the shares from some other investor who is holding his shares long; the broker itself seldom actually purchases the shares to lend to the short seller.[1] The lender of the shares does not lose the right to sell the shares.
Short selling is the opposite of "going long." The short seller takes a fundamentally negative, or "bearish" stance, anticipating that the price of the shorted stock will fall (not rise as in long buying), and it will be possible to buy at a lower price whatever was sold, thereby making a profit ("selling high and buying low," to reverse the adage). The act of buying back the shares which were sold short is called 'covering the short'. Day traders and hedge funds often use short selling to allow them to profit on trading in stocks which they believe are overvalued, just as traditional long investors attempt to profit on stocks which are undervalued by buying those stocks.
In the U.S., in order to sell stocks short, the seller must arrange for a broker-dealer to confirm that it is able to make delivery of the shorted securities. This is referred to as a "locate," and it is a legal requirement that U.S. regulated broker-dealers not permit their customers to short securities without first obtaining a locate. Brokers have a variety of means to borrow stocks in order to facilitate locates and make good delivery of the shorted security.”
How much short selling has been going on lately?
Lots. Bloomberg:
“More than $1.4 trillion of equities worldwide are now on loan, about a third higher than at the start of 2007, data compiled by Spitalfields Advisors, the London-based firm specializing in securities lending, show. Almost all of that is being used to speculate that shares will fall, according to James Angel, a finance professor at Georgetown University who studies short selling. The global economic slowdown, $453 billion in bank losses and an explosion of funds that can profit from stock declines spurred the increase in short selling, helping send 22 of 23 countries in the MSCI World Index into bear markets.”
Let’s see whether US regulators agree with (my amended) Shakespeare…
This is good news for Canada and great work by Fortier/Emerson and Stephen Harper. I look forward to the conference on October 17. This has potential to be huge for the Canadian and European economies. I am very happy with the Conservative government's approach to free trade agreements. -Darryl
Canada-EU trade proposal rivals scope of NAFTA
Plan to lift barriers for goods and labour to be discussed at summit after election
DOUG SAUNDERS
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
September 18, 2008 at 2:00 AM EDT
LONDON — Canadian and European officials say they plan to begin negotiating a massive agreement to integrate Canada's economy with the 27 nations of the European Union, with preliminary talks to be launched at an Oct. 17 summit in Montreal three days after the federal election.
Trade Minister Michael Fortier and his staff have been engaged for the past two months with EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson and the representatives of European governments in an effort to begin what a senior EU official involved in the talks described in an interview yesterday as “deep economic integration negotiations.”
If successful, Canada would be the first developed nation to have open trade relations with the EU, which has completely open borders between its members but imposes steep trade and investment barriers on outsiders.
The proposed pact would far exceed the scope of older agreements such as NAFTA by encompassing not only unrestricted trade in goods, services and investment and the removal of tariffs, but also the free movement of skilled people and an open market in government services and procurement – which would require that Canadian governments allow European companies to bid as equals on government contracts for both goods and services and end the favouring of local or national providers of public-sector services.
Previous efforts to reach a trade pact with Europe have failed, most recently in 2005 with the collapse of the proposed Trade and Investment Enhancement Agreement.
But with the breakdown of World Trade Organization talks in July, European officials have become much more interested in opening a bilateral trade and economic integration deal with North America.
A pact with the United States would be politically impossible in Europe, senior European Commission officials said.
A newly completed study of the proposed deal, which European officials said Prime Minister Stephen Harper decided not to release until after the election, concludes that the pact would increase bilateral trade and investment by at least $40-billion a year, mainly in trade in services.
Ottawa officials say they have overcome what they see as their biggest hurdle: the resistance of provincial governments to an agreement that would force them to allow European corporations to provide their government services, if their bids are the lowest.
Although Ottawa's current list of foreign-policy priorities does not include European issues, European and Canadian officials say Mr. Harper has been heavily engaged with the proposed trade pact.
The two governments have completed a detailed study of the proposed agreement that will be unveiled shortly after the election, should the Conservatives win.
Both Ottawa and Brussels have had staff work on a draft text for a deal they had hoped would be introduced at a Canada-EU summit, to be attended by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and Mr. Harper in Montreal on Oct. 17. France currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU, and Mr. Sarkozy has said that he hopes to make economic integration with Canada one of his accomplishments.
Last Wednesday, a top Ottawa trade official wrote to Mr. Mandelson to propose “the launch of comprehensive negotiations toward a closer economic partnership at the Canada-EU Leaders Summit, to be held on October 17,” and stressed that all 13 provincial and territorial governments had agreed to the proposed pact at a July 18 meeting in Quebec City.
Because of the election, Mr. Harper appears to have decided not to unveil a full text of the proposed agreement, but instead to use the summit to inaugurate the trade talks with the launch of a “scoping exercise” that will quickly set the goals of the pact and lead to formal “comprehensive trade and investment negotiations” to begin in “early 2009,” according to communications between senior Canadian and European officials examined by The Globe and Mail.
Proponents, including all of Canada's major business-lobby organizations, are in favour of the deal because it would open Canadian exporters to a market of 500 million people and allow the world's largest pool of investment capital into Canadian companies without restrictions.
Because Canada's fractious provinces have killed attempts at a trade pact in the past, Europe is demanding that Canada accept a more far-reaching agreement than Canada and Europe had attempted before, in an effort to win a stronger commitment, EU officials said.
Major “deal-breaker” conditions, officials said, include full agreement by all 10 provinces, especially on the issue of European companies providing government services, and what are known as “geographic indicators,” which forbid products such as champagne and feta cheese to be produced under those names outside their nations of origin. Controversially for Canada, this may soon be extended so only English producers can use the name cheddar on their cheese.
However, both sides agree that there is far more political will to negotiate a major deal, on both sides than there ever has been.
“I am far more optimistic this time than I've ever been in the past. … I feel very confident that we will be able to launch something on Oct. 17 that will give us a better chance than we've ever had before to get a full deal in place,” said Roy MacLaren, head of the Canada-Europe Round Table, a pro-trade business organization that has been heavily involved in the negotiations.
As a trade minister in the Jean Chrétien government and later as a diplomat, Mr. MacLaren was involved in several previous attempts at a Canada-EU pact.
Is John Tory taking Paul Godfrey's job with the Blue Jays? That rumour has been going around for weeks, but yesterday Bill Murdoch who was just tossed from the PC caucus mentioned it in media interviews. From the Blue Jay perspective, there is no doubt that J.P. Ricciardi could be gone at the end of the season. If Paul Godfrey were to leave as President and CEO, would Ted Rogers call on his former CEO and former CFL commissioner to run his baseball franchise and perhaps headup the pitch for an NFL team in Toronto? I really like John Tory and think he should remain leader of the PC Party. Hopefully this rumour isn't true, but it seems to be gaining steam lately. Hopefully the issue relating to John Tory's leadership and potential seat in the legislature clears up before the end of the year.
Quotes from Murdoch:
"John should look at other options," Mr. Murdoch added. "If it's true that the Blue Jays have offered him a job, he should probably seriously think about it.""This puts a nail in his coffin," Mr. Murdoch said Thursday. "John is smart and about the hardest working person I've ever seen, but he's not a politician. To me, his political life's over. He'll have a great life as the president of the Blue Jays if he takes that job. Or whatever other private sector job he takes, he'll do well."
I guess we will see what happens over the next few weeks. On a side note; I think the hiring of Cito Gaston turned out to be huge for the Jays. I look forward to seeing what he does with the team through a full season next year.
-Darryl
Maverick MPP turfed
Ontario Conservatives eject Murdoch from caucus
Lee Greenberg, Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, September 18, 2008
TORONTO - Ontario Conservatives ejected their most outspoken member from caucus on Thursday, turfing rural MPP Bill Murdoch for voicing his displeasure with the party's seatless leader, John Tory. Mr. Murdoch last week said Mr. Tory should look for another job, complaining about his lack of progress getting elected to the legislature. The repeated shots were too much to take, Mr. Tory said Thursday, adding not many bosses in other professions would tolerate employees who "publicly dump(ed)" on them repeatedly. "I am the democratically elected leader of this party," he told reporters. "And I think it's not unreasonable to expect we're going to have the support of this caucus."
But Mr. Murdoch says it was his democratic right to speak freely about the party's problems. "I never expected it to go this far," he said Thursday. "I expected Tory would say, like Mike Harris would have said, 'well, that's Murdoch and I'll deal with him.' And I actually even told him that. He wouldn't stop long enough to listen to me, as usual. John likes to talk and not listen." Mr. Tory's support appeared to be waning ahead of a meeting last week to discuss his lagging bid to find a seat in the legislature. Some feel a pledge to win a seat by this fall is now in doubt. Mr. Murdoch, as has often been the case, was the lone Conservative caucus member to publicly voice his displeasure with his boss. "I've basically given up on (John Tory)," he said, saying what several others would only say in private.
"John should look at other options," Mr. Murdoch added. "If it's true that the Blue Jays have offered him a job, he should probably seriously think about it."
He was suspended from caucus last week and was asked to back off those comments. But Mr. Murdoch refused to submit to caucus discipline. "This isn't like team sports," he said. "This is a democracy." Mr. Murdoch, a farmer who once kept a pet donkey, said Mr. Tory wanted to show he was "a tough guy" by kicking him out of caucus. He figures the decision will backfire among caucus, many of whom backed Mr. Murdoch last week.
"This puts a nail in his coffin," Mr. Murdoch said Thursday. "John is smart and about the hardest working person I've ever seen, but he's not a politician. To me, his political life's over. He'll have a great life as the president of the Blue Jays if he takes that job. Or whatever other private sector job he takes, he'll do well."
Mr. Murdoch, the MPP for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, has a long history of speaking his mind. He declared his party was "in tatters" after the 2003 election, when Conservatives dropped from a 59-seat majority to just 24 seats. "We're $8 million in debt, we don't have a leader. It's just sort of hit and miss," he said at the time. He also mulled joining the NDP when the left-wing party dropped to seven seats, one below the threshold for official party status. At one point, he had a pet donkey. In 2003 he refused to attend caucus meetings because MPP Tim Hudak, a man for whom he had "no respect whatsoever," was elected caucus chair. The decision to expel Mr. Murdoch was relayed to him Thursday in a letter by veteran MPP Bob Runciman, the party's interim leader in the legislature. "We've been through a lot of ups and downs together," Mr. Runciman said. "It's really unfortunate that it's come to this. But Billy made his own bed and he has to lie in it." Mr. Murdoch will sit as an independent when the Queen's Park assembly resumes Monday. "No doubt, it's a challenging time for us now" Mr. Runciman said, referring to his party's difficulties connecting with voters. "I think to get through this we have to pull together, we have to be rowing in the same direction. And Bill opted to do otherwise."
With the Toronto Blue Jays sitting once again on the brink of playoff elimination, the rumblings in the front office are starting to overshadow the play on the field. Blue Jays president Paul Godfrey joined Michael Landsberg on TSN's Off the Record Wednesday to discuss his future with the team and the future of general manager J.P. Ricciardi. There has been speculation that Godfrey would step away from the team at the end of the year, something he acknowledged, but would not confirm. "My contract comes up at the end of the year," Godfrey said. "I have to discuss it with my family and we will decide then. I haven't made up my mind whether I'm going to leave." Godfrey is not the only member of the Blue Jays front office whose future is in question. After seven years at the helm, and no playoff appearances, speculation has been rampant that Ricciardi could also be moving on. A report Wednesday suggested that Ricciardi will return for another year. While the team has not announced anything official, the Toronto Star suggests that Cito Gaston's return next year, something Ricciardi himself announced back in August, indicates that the GM will remain in place. The newspaper argues that any new GM would want to hire his own manager, and not be saddled with an existing one. Godfrey, once again, reiterated his support for Ricciardi and commended what he has accomplished. "I've always been a supporter of J.P. Ricciardi's and I continue to be a supporter of J.P. Ricciardi's," Godfrey said. "The fact is this, I've said all along, you make decisions based on the year as a whole. Are we a playoff contender? Obviously not. "[But] when J.P. took over, the organization had a number of over-paid, under-achievers on the club. You take a snapshot of what we have now, it is appreciably better. What he's done in the major leagues, what he's done in the minor leagues, how he's built the farm system." However, Godfrey did acknowledge that the decision on Ricciardi's future may not be up to him. "If I do stay, it will be my call. If I don't stay, I think it's up to somebody else." Godfrey also vehemently denied that he pushed for Gaston to replace former manager John Gibbons and not Ricciardi. "It was a mutual discussion. I spoke to J.P. about a possible change. He came back with the name 'Cito Gaston' immediately. I think it's an unfair shot at J.P." While Godfrey remains loyal to his general manager, the threat of major front office moves loom over the franchise. The Blue Jays have responded well under Gaston and although they made a late push for a playoff spot, it now seems almost certain they will once again miss their chance at playing baseball in October. To complicate matters they have been hit by the injury bug again. Tuesday's starter Shaun Marcum left the game in the third inning after feeling discomfort in his forearm and numbness in the pinkie finger of his right arm. Catcher Rod Barajas is also hurting due to a sore left hamstring. They are both scheduled to have MRIs on Thursday. In 2009 the team will once again try to find a way to survive in Major League Baseball's most competitive division. With the New York Yankees opening a new stadium and already planning to make a splash in the free agent market, plus the improved Tamps Bay Rays and always dangerous Red Sox, a slow start to next season could be disastrous. Whoever ends up in the GM chair for the Jays will have a significant challenge ahead of them. http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/story/?id=249801 ***
Jays president Godfrey uncertain about returning
TORONTO (AP) — Blue Jays president Paul Godfrey said Wednesday that he hasn't decided whether to seek a new contract when his current deal expires at the end of 2008, but supports retaining general manager J.P. Ricciardi and manager Cito Gaston in 2009.
A former newspaper publisher and municipal politician, Godfrey was named president of the Blue Jays on Sept. 1, 2000, when Rogers Communications became majority owner. His contract expires Dec. 31, but Godfrey expects to make a decision on his future sooner than that.
"Two or three weeks after the season ends we'll be coming to some conclusions," Godfrey said.
Whether he wants to come back is still up in the air.
"I haven't decided that yet," Godfrey said. "My contract expires at the end of '08 and I've not made any comment on that. I have some important matters to discuss with my family and I've said that consistently. At the same time, I've got to discuss that not only with my family, but the ownership at that point in time."
Godfrey said he has authorized Ricciardi to discuss a new deal for Gaston, who replaced John Gibbons as Blue Jays manager on June 20.
"I've spoken to him about negotiating a contract with Cito going forward," Godfrey said. "I've been a big supporter of J.P., I'm the guy who hired J.P."
Ricciardi, who has two years remaining on his contract, said in early August that he intended to bring Gaston back next season. Formal negotiations have not yet begun, but the men expect to meet this week and Ricciardi said a deal will likely be completed "before the end of the season."
"Cito will be here next year," Ricciardi said. "We'll take care of that."
An announcement on the future of Toronto's coaching staff is expected at the same time. It's not clear whether Gaston intends to retain the three coaches he inherited when he took over, pitching coach Brad Arnsberg, bench coach Brian Butterfield and bullpen coach Bruce Walton.
"I'd like to have them back, I've told them that," Gaston said. "It's still up to them. The guys that are here have done a good job, so I can't see any reason why it would be any different. But you never know, maybe some of them choose not to come back."
Toronto has gone 45-32 since Gaston took over.
"I'm proud, but still think we could have done better," Gaston said.
Consider what happens when one of Harper’s cabinet ministers escapes from the Harper Muzzle:
“A media report today said that on August 30, 2008, Mr. Ritz made inappropriate and insensitive comments concerning the deaths that have occurred while on a conference call that included members of the Prime Minister’s Office, Mr. Ritz’s staff and staff from Health Minister Tony Clement’s office.According to a report from the Canadian Press, Minister Ritz was more concerned with the political fallout against his government than the impact of these deaths on Canadian families.
During the call, Mr. Ritz said: “This is like a death by a thousand cuts. Or should I say cold cuts.”
When told about a new death from listeriosis on Prince Edward Island, Minister Ritz said: “Please tell me it's Wayne Easter.””
How does one frame this episode, under the genera framing of Harper: Can you trust this man?
Simple, really.
We all know that Harper has muzzled his MPs and cabinet ministers. Harper is the only one allowed to comment publicly on most issues, and his MPs and ministers are forbidden to speak in public on such issues.
So we have a prime minister of a democracy who forbids his MPs and ministers from speaking out in public on issues vital to the citizens of the country. That in itself is cause for concern regarding Harper’s trustworthiness as prime minister.
But let’s take it one step further.
Mr. Ritz’s reported statements are shocking, and reveal a callousness towards those Canadians who died, and their families, which is unbelievable for a Canadian cabinet minister.
But let’s be very clear.
Harper has muzzled his MPs and cabinet ministers because he is afraid that they will say things in public which would reflect what they say in private meetings; he must fear that if Canadians really got to know what his MPs and cabinet ministers really thought and said when they were in private meetings, that Canadians would be revolted by the values of those MPs and cabinet ministers.
Why else would be muzzle them?
So, let’s consider this further.
How can you trust a prime minister who hides his MPs and cabinet ministers from public discussion of matters of state, because of such possible fears?
How on earth can one vote for Harper and his Tories, if your vote might give him a majority?
How on earth do you know that they REALLY think and believe, if they are hidden from your sight, so that you as a voter cannot form a considered judgment about them?
Mr. Ritz has done Canadians a favour, by revealing what might be the true face and values of Harper’s MPs and cabinet ministers.
New Conservative Ad: "Soft on crime does not work"
Speaking of soft on crime, stories like the ones below really anger me. It is time to get tough on these type of crimes as well. 100 hours of community service and a restriction on owning an animal for 2 years is no where near justice for these families and their animals. -Darryl
A further example of attacking Harper at his point of maximum vulnerability with Canadians (man y of whom just do not trust him as a politician), is this:
Can you trust a man who promises one thing so that he can be elected, and then does another thing when in power?
Take the income trusts issue, for example.
Before the election, Harper made a clear, deliberate and firm promise not to tax the income from such trusts, because that would hurt elderly people and others. After the election, he taxed them, claiming that circumstances had changed, and so he had to act to protect Canada’s tax base.
Voters should think about this carefully.
Does this pattern mean that you cannot trust any promise which Harper makes, because his motives for making the promise is suspect (to get elected at all costs)?
Does this mean that his promise that he does not have a rightwing, hidden agenda which he will implement as soon as he has a majority government, is a promise which he will break as soon as he gets his majority?
Does this pattern of broken promises mean that Harper makes promises before elections, without carefully considering whether the facts support his promises, but knowing that if the facts do not, he can simply break the promise and claim circumstances have changed (as he did with the income trusts)?
If so, should you vote for a man who wants to have a majority government but who does not do his homework properly?
Dion has slammed Harper on the basis of trust, talking about the promises made to the Maritimes and then later broken by the prime minister. This is a good start.
But to make this framing work and change the dynamics of the elections (as will be shown by the polls), Dion and his Liberal team must constantly use the same frame, on every day of the remaining campaign, both in ads and in all speeches.
Only such a disciplined approach will help overcome the massive money advantage that the Tories have due to their fund raising and cash on hand, and hence ability to flood the airwaves with radio and TV ads.
How can we help the Liberals make this framing of Harper stick?
Perhaps by bloggers using their blogs to provide examples to the Liberals of how the general framing is illustrated by past and future actions and words of Harper and his Tories.
Let me start the ball rolling with a few suggestions…
1. Can you trust this man to maintain the strength of the federal government of Canada, and protect what has made Canada a great sea-to-sea-to-sea nation?
After all, has he not embarked on a campaign to weaken the ability of the federal government to deal with national problems by reducing the federal government’s role in favour of the provinces?
2. Can you trust this man to maintain the integrity and independence of Canada’s courts?
Has he not changed the way the appointments to our courts are made, brushing aside or ignoring independent methods to choose judges, in favour of his choosing conservative judges?
3. Can you trust this man to deal with economic uncertainty should we have a recession or a depression?
Has he not made Canada weaker by reducing the money available to the government by cutting the sales tax and other taxes?
Darryl on Focal Point with John Taylor tonight at 8pm on Rogers Television
Looking forward to a great debate on Mr. Taylor's new show. The show is live tonight at 8pm and allows people to call in live. We will be talking about the federal election with a York Region perspective. -Darryl
Focal Point with John Taylor
Local Issues... Tough Questions... Great Debate
Tune in to this brand new show on Rogers TV
Tuesdays and Wednesdays live at 8pm
Leading up to the Federal Election, the show’s focus is the issues that matter
to you… join the discussion… call in and ask your question….
Factor two things into your calculations, and you might find that the Liberals can form the next government even if they win fewer seats than the Tories.
The two things to consider are (i) that the Tories might not win a majority of seats (if they do, they will form the government); and (ii) that the opposition parties usually collectively represent by far the majority of votes cast, and the majority of seats in Parliament.
So, what can Dion do now to prepare to take over the government in just over a month’s time?
Let’s assume that between them the Liberals, Greens and NDP together win slightly more seats in Parliament than the Tories do, even though the Tories have the most seats of all parties.
Dion should task a small group to explore the terms on which the Greens, NDP and Liberals could govern. If suitable terms are found, and an agreement in principle reached between May, Layton and Dion before election day, then as soon as the result is announced, Dion can claim that he has the majority support in Parliament of all parties, and approach the Governor General to form the government.
Why would this work?
Because there are probably more similarities between the Greens, Liberals and NDP than between those 3 parties individually and the Tories.
Why should Layton agree?
Because he will be able to influence the parliamentary agenda for the next four years, and have policies his party espouses fleshed out in bills.
This would not be a formal merger of the 3 parties, but a looser coalition, similar to what we have seen in the past.
Who would benefit?
The majority of Canadians, who do not want Harper to lead a majority government, but who seem to prefer minority governments.
Democratic Space is projecting Newmarket-Aurora going Conservative
This is great news but we cannot let up. We must work very hard until October 14 and not make any mistakes. Victory is in sight and achievable if we work for it. The national blue tide is sweeping Newmarket-Aurora and many other ridings across the nation. Electionprediction.org still has us at too close to call. Both have 90% accuracy records. -Darryl
The art of politics revolves around the ability to ‘frame’ the issues, ‘frame’ the people, ‘frame’ the debates in the public places.
I have decided on the major frame which I believe can lead the Liberals to a minority government in this election, and make Dion prime minister. If Dion adopts my suggestion, of course.
So far, Stephane Dion and his Liberal team have not succeeded in making any effective frames about Harper and his Tories stick, and Harper has. Harper has run the public place discourse by making several frames stick, including the frame Dion is a weak leader, the frame The Green Shift is a risky tax increase, and the frame Stephen Harper is a decisive leader, and the frame Tories deliver on their promises.
George Lakoff has summarized the use of frames by the Republicans in the following article: “I am concerned about the upcoming debates. There are two aspects of debate prep: internal and external. Let's start with the external, since it's less obvious. What happens in a debate depends very much on questions asked and the framing used to ask them. It's the job of a campaign to get questions asked that use their own framing and language, not the opposition's framing and language. The McCain campaign has been very active in prepping the press to ask his questions with his frames: The Maverick Frame, the Country First Frame, The Surge Is Working Frame, the Victory Frame, The Drilling Frame, the Change Washington Frame, and so on. McCain can answer questions based on these frames easily and forcefully, as he did at the Saddleback debate, which he won handily.”
In the Cat’s view the most formidable frame which Dion and his Liberal team can adopt in order to win the election is this: Harper – Can you trust him?
This frame has the advantage of attacking Harper at his strongest point: his claims to be a decisive leader, who delivers on his promises, runs a good government, and can be trusted by Canadians.
How do we offset Harper’s winning of the framing game? By adopting this major frame, and hitting Harper and the Tories with it time after time, in every major speech by Liberal MPs, and in most advertisements, over the next 30 days.
Under the frame Harper: Can you trust him? Dion and his team can wrap statements of fact about Harper’s past behaviour, and flip flops.
All of these must be cast in the frame of trust. The word trust must be used repeatedly. Examples of what can be used under this frame? There are many.
The income trust broken promise: can you trust a man who breaks a clear promise a few months later?
The lack of trust Harper has in his MPs and Cabinet members, which leads to his running the whole show himself and muzzling them: can you trust a man who does not trust his own team? His past statements, such as his firewall advice to Alberta, and his recent actions to reduce federal power in favour of provincial power: can you trust a man who does not stand up for Canada, but acts like a puppet for the premiers?
You get the drift ...
If Dion starts using the trust frame for all future attacks, his chances of leading a Liberal government in a month or so will be dramatically improved.
