Ice Models (Milan)

Group Model Management Spain
Seeds Management (Berlin)
IMG Models
Paprazzi Model Management (Amsterdam)
-> her tfs forum topic

PC Leadership Coverage in the Canadian Chinese Media

Good outreach efforts on the part of the PC Party of Ontario
-Darryl

Viva Models (London, Paris)
DNA Model Management (New York)
Yes Model Management (Bucharest)
Paparazzi Model Management (Amsterdam)
Women Management (Milan)
-> her tfs forum topic

Frank Klees on Canada in the Rough

Frank's recent appearance on 'Canada In the Rough' in which he expressed strong support for hunters and anglers

Frank Klees Opening and Closing Statement in Sudbury Debate

A strong performance for Frank Klees in the North
-Darryl

Frank Klees Opening and Closing Statement in London Debate

Momentum has been growing for Frank Klees after a strong debate performance in both London and Sudbury. He is showing he is ready to be leader today and premier tomorrow.
-Darryl

Video: Frank Klees speaking at event in Toronto

Video: Frank Klees on Don Newman Politics

I think Frank did a great job here.
-Darryl

floor funk @ 2009-05-30T11: 18:00

Because there is never enough Jensen Ackles can be Picspämme ...

Des's it. :)
(I'm only just occurred, so no idea how to Tag it here)

Frank Klees on Don Newman tonight between 5-6pm EST

Frank Klees will be a guest on Don Newman's "Politics" show this evening between 5-6pm Eastern Time. The show airs on CBC Newsword and you can also view a live webcast online. Past episodes can also be found at the link below. Frank will also be speaking at the Toronto Board of Trade for Lunch on Friday June 5 at 1st Canadian Pace. Klees also has the opportunity to speak to the Economic Club in June.
-Darryl

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/

Finance Minister Flaherty is starting to look like an onion undergoing a slow motion unpeeling. Every week, it seems, more facts are revealed, and one more layer of the Tory onion is peeled back, to reveal several things, all of which should concern Canadians.

There is the denial of reality syndrome that the Harper Tory government seems to have displayed for more than a year now. The Globe & Mail has a nice analysis of the series of inaccurate statements and projections put forward by the Tories.

Then there is disturbing reasoning of the Tory finance minister as to what has caused the deficits, and how unexpected such deficits are.

There is also the lack of detail. At a time when deficits are important items for Canadians to consider, we find our government releasing information reluctantly, and with little detail.

What Canadians have a right to know from their government is:

1. Why did the government not realize that deficits would balloon? Is it that incompetent?

2. Is the government stalling with respect to the expected position of our government's finances, and trying to deceive the public with half-truths, withheld-truths and absolute lies?

3. What is the deficit made up of?

4. What is a realistic expectation of government finances for the next 3 to 5 years?

5. Just how much of the deficit is caused by spending as part of the stimulus package, and how much by other things?

We as citizens have a right to know what our money (our taxes) are being spent on.

We expect our government to march in step with other countries by stimulating our economy through judicious stimulus spending. But we also want to be sure that the deficits so caused are 'good deficits'. A good deficit is one caused by expenditure to soften a recession, with the expenditure doing more than just shovelling money out of government coffers into trinkets. When Harper spends our money, we have the right to expect it to be spent on projects which will have an impact on jobs and which will be of long lasting, structural benefit to our society.

There is very little in the government's information to date which gives us the details to judge fairly whether the $50 billion plus deficits Flaherty has suddenly discovered looming over him, is a good deficit or a bad one.

And the government's main test (no long term deficits at all costs) does not comfort us. The test is not whether the government can balance the budget within 4 years but whether (1) the money was spent on the proper things (see above) and (2) whether in fact we need to raise taxes after the recession to restore financial viability to our federal government.

Harper and is fellow-ideologues have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in gutting the ability of our government to play a meaningful role, but their slashing of government income (through the tax reductions, including the asinine GST reduction), has made us weaker just when we needed a strong central government.

It seems to the Cat that it is now time for us to turf out this incompetent government, and put a better one in power. And we should expect our political parties to do everything that might be needed to achieve that objective.

Hotties 09 Teil 2

Hellas the ladies.!

some other things to a formality of our choice.

I let Poll the end of the week, so Monday morning open (if you do want to suggest someone jmd) and open then a new one with the proposals.

We will not 20 winners each have a voice, I've thought about it that each of us has three votes which are graded differently.

Say 1st place gets 3 points , the second in your favor after all, still gets 2 points and the 3rd in your eyes Most attractive gets 1 point . All

d'accord?

the way, you're welcome to "imagine" your proposals. I do not think everyone knows each / any, and perhaps would be quite cool to have an overview so you can make from any one or a picture in mind added before voting on it without knowing all.

So if you like posting picture / picspam / whatever.

I just hope you have fun just like me. ;) Is

Michael Ignatieff might have changed his mind on the Coalition agreement he and all other Liberal MPs signed with the NDP, but sooner or later (and most likely sooner) he will find himself in talks with the NDP on the contours of a coalition government.

The Gap guarantees that he will have to enter into such talks.

What is the Gap?

Consider the current seat allocations in Parliament. The Tories have 143 seats (10 in Quebec, 51 in Ontario). The Liberals have 77 (38 in Ontario, 14 in Quebec). The NDP has 36. The Bloc has 48 (of Quebec's total of 75).

The gap between the Tory's 143 seats and the Liberals is 66 seats.

The gap between the Tory's 143 seats and the combined Liberal and NDP 113 seats is 30 seats.

The political party with the most seats after the next election will be asked by the Governor General to attempt to form a government, and to pass a vote of confidence in the House. For the Liberals on their own to become the party with the most seats and so be asked by the GG to form a government, they will need to close the gap of 66 seats between them and the Tories.

The LPC can close this gap by taking 34 seats away from the Tories.

This means they would have to take (say) all 10 Tory seats in Quebec and 23 other seats (from the Tories 51 in Ontario, or the other provinces). If they could do this (and current polls make this very unlikely), the LPC would end up with 111 seats and the Tories with 110 seats.

In order to win its first vote of confidence, and so become the government, the LPC would need the support of either (1) both the Bloc and the NDP, or (2) the NDP with the Bloc abstaining from voting, or (3) the Bloc (whether or not the NDP abstains from voting).

The LPC might also close the gap by taking seats from both the Tories and NDP (a more likely scenario, given that the NDP seems to be at its high water mark of seats, and its tide is ebbing daily). But to be asked by the GG to become the government, the LPC will still need 112 votes to the Tory's reduced 110 votes.

It is highly unlikely at this stage that the LPC will take seats away from the Bloc.

How probable is it that the Bloc will support the Liberals? It is possible. The Bloc would be relatively indifferent to whether the Tories or Liberals are the government, provided the governing party does not attack its funding, and is taking steps to boost the Quebec economy. It has in the past supported the Tories, and was prepared to support the Coalition before Ignatieff unilaterally broke the agreement between the Coalition and the Bloc. However, it is also possible that the Bloc will refuse to vote for the Liberals, and abstain or vote against the LPC government, in order to punish Ignatieff for breaking that agreement. It might decide it could wring more concessions for Quebec from a suitably chastened Tory minority government, and so throw its support behind Harper when the Liberal government fails its first confidence vote and the GG turns to Harper to form a government.

What is clear from the above analysis is that the LPC and NDP are locked in a self-destroying mutual fight, with both losing, and the Tories benefiting.

Harper showed strategic brilliance in his early analysis that the only way the Liberals had become the 'naturally governing party' was because the opposition to the LPC was divided. So he set about uniting the opposition parties, and with the help of Peter MacKay merged the Progressive Conservative Party (actually a reverse takeover) with the Alliance Party. And ended the decades-long honeymoon of the Liberals.

For Ignatieff to become Prime Minister, he will need to show similar strategic brilliance. The clearest way for the Liberals to become the government is through an agreement with the NDP which provides for the NDP to support the LPC.

Layton would consider such an agreement, provided that the NDP gained something significant from this. A formal merger (for a set period) similar to the one Ignatieff killed, might do the trick. However, if the LPC took seats away from the NDP in the next election, the willingness of the NDP to support the LPC would be significantly reduced.

The chances are higher that the NDP would consider an electoral pact, in writing, entered into before the next election (that is, before any vote of confidence in the Harper government being held), made public, and linked to the retention by the NDP of its current seats in the House as well as a formal coalition.

Right now it seems that Ignatieff his concentrating on proving to Harper that he is as tough as Harper, and is talking about confidence votes. But sooner or later he and his senior advisors will need to consider the realities of the political strengths of the various parties should we have an election.

Those realities currently favour another Tory minority government.

Unless Ignatieff thinks strategically, and has a Harper flash of inspiration regarding changing the game, rather than fighting an election on ground which favours the Tories. If he does, the best bet would be coalition talks now with the NDP. However, to avoid any problems of perception (such as those he claims made him change his mind about the last Coalition), he could cut a deal with the NDP but not cut any formal deal with the Bloc, and hope that between them the LPC and NDP can win more seats than the Tories in the next election.

If Ignatieff had lived up to his signature and supported the NDP-LPC Coalition agreement earlier this year, we would now have a minority government headed by the Coalition, supported by the Bloc for 18 months through its agreement not to vote against the Coalition on confidence matters, and busily implementing a realistic, timely stimulus program and an enhanced, fairer EI program.

Instead we have Harper's Tories dragging their heels, resisting changes to a fairer EI system, lying about opposition programs, and relying on dissension among the three opposition parties to give it time (18 months will do) to weather the recession and restore their fortunes.

And meanwhile chipping away at Ignatieff's qualifications as a possible prime minister, and doing very nicely at that, as the latest poll shows:

"The latest survey, conducted for Canwest News Service and Global National, shows the Harper Conservatives have edged up two percentage points in recent weeks, to capture a slim lead with 35 per cent support.

The Liberals, while significantly ahead of their showing under former leader Stephane Dion, have dropped three points to 33 per cent support of decided voters.

Ontario is responsible for the slight reversal of fortunes for the two lead parties, according to the telephone poll of 1,000 adults, conducted May 20-24 by Ipsos Reid.

Pollster Darrell Bricker attributed the Conservative climb in Canada's most populous province --where the party captured 39 per cent support to the Liberals' 37 per cent -- to a slightly improving economy.

The NDP garnered 14 per cent of support among decided voters nationally.

The Green party and Bloc Québécois held steady at eight and nine per cent respectively."

Note the significant conclusion in the quote above of the pollster: the Tories are up in Ontario due to a "slightly improving economy."

There you have Harper's game plan: stall for time, call the Liberals' bluff, and wait for the recession to fade, then choose a time to go to the voters, claiming to have managed the country successfully through a recession, by steady supervision from a decisive, seasoned 'born and lived in Canada' leader.

And all the time chipping away at Ignatieff with a steady stream of framing ads.
Not a pretty sight, but a possibility nonetheless.

What a pity the Liberal caucus joined Ignatieff in turning its back on a Coalition government.

We have heard Duceppe, Layton, Ignatieff and Harper growl about lines in the sand regarding unemployment insurance, and the media have been scrambling to decipher the growls. Do they really mean that there could be a summer election over a vote of confidence on the EI which the Tories lose?

Or will either Layton or Harper or Ignatieff back off when confronted, and seek another way out?

The sticking point, according to Harper's Tories (who have been clearer than either Layton or Ignatieff on whether they will fight an election) appears to be the use of a common 360 hours test before anyone can start claiming EI. The Tories have distorted the positions of the NDP and LPC on this issue, with Baird comically fulminating about 'socialism' (does that man actually know what socialism is about? I doubt it).

However, come June 4 – less than two weeks away – we the voters will see which of these leaders have been blustering and which have actually meant what they said.

The opportunity will be the vote on the NDP bill C-280, as Layton explains:

"Jack Layton: Bill c-280 has received first reading in the House and is being debated on June 3rd. The vote on Second Reading will be on June 10th. If it passes, it will go to the Standing Committee for consideration and amendments. That is where I hope that a compromise can be found so that we can get it back for the Third Reading vote before the end of June, allowing unemployed workers to get help. The key elements of the Bill are: lowering the hours needed to qualify to 360 hours everywhere in Canada, eliminating the 2 week penalty period and increasing the benefit rates.

9:55 Jack Layton: The NDP motion calling for the measures found in our Bill, and more - such as allowing self-employed people to participate in EI - was passed by the House of Commons two months ago. Mr. Harper used to say that any Prime Minister had a moral obligation to respect the will of the House of Commons. I guess he lost that morality along the way somehow!

9:55 Bruce Campion-Smith:
If I could ask Mr. Layton a question, do you see a scenario where the opposition parties could come together in the next few weeks on this issue and press the government?

9:58 Jack Layton: I believe that our Bill provides the context for such an agreement, Bruce. Talk is one thing, and not worth much. Legislation is the key tool of Parliament to get things changed. That's why we started with a motion on EI, to test the will of the House. It passed. The government failed to legislate, therefore, we converted our ideas into Legislation and ensured they came to the House in a timely way, putting aside other business to get our Bill into the schedule of the House. It is now too late for other parties to bring forward legislation this June, so our Bill has to become the focus for the efforts to fix EI by the time the House rises."

Note the following:

1. The NDP bill was passed as a motion by the LPC, NDP and Bloc. Why would any of these parties not now pass the bill to convert that motion into legislation?

2. Passing the NDP bill will be a confidence measure, triggering an election.

3. No other party has time available under the rules of Parliament to introduce their own legislation.

4. The NDP bill has the change to a uniform 360 hour requirement that all three opposition parties want.

5. Layton has indicated elsewhere that he hopes that if the bill is passed, then the Tories can introduce amendments at the Standing Committee. He has offered Harper a fig leaf by saying he thinks that amendments may be possible which meet Harper's concerns and still get the amended bill passed into law. This is Layton's strategy to avoid an election at this time, but to honour his party's commitment to the earlier NDP motion which the three opposition parties passed. Time will tell if Layton is reading Harper correctly.

So, battle is joined.

Let us now see what the four bristling party leaders say when the rubber hits the road.

Get yourself some popcorn and settle down to enjoy the show!

Hotties 2009

Because I just bit boring and I would like to indulge in the superficiality of what you think about it when we make a "Sexiest Man / Woman Alive" Voting?

I am here and you can clean the Voting Both men and women suggest. If we have enough together we vote and we honor the grapevine aphrodisiac 2009 ... or something.

Fun, anyone?

I am just pure, wenns ne stupid idea was, ego shall remember so quickly if no proposals are, you could say the same calm. If not, get it on! Me likes!

you can suggest whom you also are considered as qualified to do so, as I'm your neighbor or even yourself ... then later voted. Perhaps we should restrict to a maximum of 2 each.

Klees leads off Question Period May 25

An example of how Klees would handle Question Period as leader. Each candidate gets a chance to do the lead.
-Darryl

FRANK KLEES ARGUES AGAINST “HST” TAX GRAB

LABELS McGUINTY’S PLAN AN OVERBURDEN TO ONTARIANS

QUEEN’S PARK -Frank Klees (MPP Aurora-Newmarket) today rebuked Dalton McGuinty during Question Period for his backdoor scheme to take more tax money from hard-working Ontarians during the worst recession in decades.

“This is the wrong thing to do at the wrong time,” said Frank Klees of the Liberals’ proposed harmonization sales tax (HST) plan. “How are those on fixed incomes and the unemployed going to cope? Will the Premier at least familiarize himself on the impact of his HST?”

With the proposed plan, the McGuinty Liberals will add more tax to services previously exempt from provincial sales tax, like gasoline and home heating fuel that will increase in price by 8 per cent.

Klees stated that McGuinty, “chose not to listen. In the face of all of the evidence and all of the pain that it will cause families and businesses … will he agree to stop this nonsense?” To watch Frank Klees today in Question Period, visit www.frank-klees.on.ca

The domino effect of the tax will cause serious setbacks in economic prosperity and job creation for the province. In order to administer the HST, businesses will incur substantial costs. Consumers will have less to spend on necessities.

Frank Klees, a candidate for Progressive Conservative leadership, was the first to speak out against the HST, even before the McGuinty Liberals introduced it. A recent survey says that seven out of ten Ontarians are also against the HST.

Frank Klees has a plan for creating opportunity for all Ontarians...

Frank Klees has rolled out some initial policy ideas through his website at http://www.frankklees.com Frank is committed to the PAC process and all ideas must be approved by the party grassroots before being included in the platform.

-Darryl

Ontario Needs An Economic Strategy

Ontario has been hemorrhaging jobs for the past year – we need an economic strategy to preserve and create jobs now.

Frank Klees advocated for the creation of a Select Committee of the Ontario Legislature that would have served as a basis for a plan to get the province into economic recovery. Premier McGuinty ignored Frank’s proposal and now the Premier is paying the price.

Not only has the government been unable to turn Ontario’s economy around, the government has embraced NDP-style tax and spend policies to spend our way out of recession and create jobs. The establishment of a non-partisan Select Committee last fall could have helped steer the Ontario economy out of the worst depths it is now experiencing.

Stop The HST

In a recession, the McGuinty government has mandated that more products and services should be taxed. With the implementation of the HST, the McGuinty government has demonstrated its addiction to taxing and spending. Unlike other provinces that implemented harmonized sales taxes, the McGuinty government is not reducing the provincial component. This punishes already-suffering industries such as the housing sector and the financial services sector. Ontarians don’t need any more deterrents from economic prosperity and job creation.

Reduce the HST’s Negative Side Effects

At a time when Ontario’s businesses don’t need anymore costs to do business, Ontario business will incur substantial costs to administer the HST. Once it’s implemented, the HST will be difficult to undo; however, the negative side-effects of the HST will still be felt. This is why Frank Klees proposes to reduce the HST to overturn the significant tax burden imposed by McGuinty.

Ontario Needs To Be Business-Friendly

Throughout the McGuinty government’s tenure, it has made life more difficult for the operation of a business. They have increased corporate taxes (making Ontario’s corporate tax rate among the highest in North America) – not to mention forcing businesses to pay a higher minimum wage in a time of economic crisis.
Frank Klees proposes to reduce business taxes and to create tax incentive zones to attract new industries and create jobs.

Let Business Lead The Way:
Tax Incentives For Manufacturing

Manufacturers in Ontario have not felt economic conditions like today since the early 1990s, if not the 1930s. To provide incentives for manufacturers to hire new staff, Frank Klees proposes a tax credit against corporate income tax to be paid. This means that if a manufacturer hires new employees, it will receive a tax credit for contributing positively to our economy. If the company is not profitable (and not paying income tax), the tax credit will be available to be carried forward until the company is profitable.

Youth Get Head Start

Following graduation from school, the toughest jobs for any student are finding secure, long-term employment and paying off debt. To encourage youth to pursue post-secondary education and help pay off educational debts, Frank Klees proposes a 4-year Ontario income tax holiday following graduation. For those who complete a university, college or registered trades program, they will not have to pay any income tax on income earned for four years after graduation.

Frank Klees has a plan for creating opportunity for all Ontarians. See Frank Klees’ website to learn more about his proposals for creating an economic recovery and opportunity for all.

Please visit: http://www.frankklees.com for further updates on policy ideas and information on how to get involved.

Having taken a beating in the press for trying to get the taxpayer to pay for a duck island he built to keep his ducks happy, a UK MP has now seen the error of his ways:

"Sir Peter Viggers, MP for Gosport, has already said he would stand down at the next election after his expenses claims were published in the Daily Telegraph.

Among his claims were £30,000 for gardening, including £500 for manure, and £1,645 on a floating duck island.

He said: "I have made a ridiculous and grave error of judgment. I am ashamed and humiliated and I apologise.""

What amounts to salt in his wounded ego is that the ducks turned tails down on his idea:

"I paid for it myself and in fact it was never liked by the ducks and is now in storage."

Just goes to show that he who walks with the ducks, and quacks with the ducks, might still be duck-challenged.

Having seen the BC revision go down in flames, reformists can take heart from the fact that there is a flicker of interest now in the UK for changing from the first past the post (FPTP) system to a modified proportional representation one:

"Gordon Brown should hold a national referendum on electoral reform, Health Secretary Alan Johnson has said.

Writing in the Times, he said Mr Brown should offer the public a "genuinely radical alternative" to the current system of first-past-the-post."

The referendum could be held soon:

" Mr Johnson, who has been widely tipped as a potential successor to Mr Brown, urged the prime minister to involve the public in "a root and branch examination" of the political system in order to regain trust following the expenses scandal. "We need to overhaul the engine, not just clean the upholstery," he wrote. "

And a very sensible and elegant system of PR might be in the offing as an alternative to FPTP:

"The new system Mr Johnson favours is known as Alternative Vote Plus and was first suggested by the Independent Commission on Electoral Reform, led by Lord Jenkins, in 1998.

Under AV Plus, voters would have two ballot papers: one for their constituency representative and a second for their favoured political party.

Most seats in the Commons would be filled with locally elected MPs, but the remainder would be allocated by proportional representation according to the number of votes cast for each party.

The Jenkins Commission referred to the second ballot as a "corrective top-up" which would allow the make-up of Parliament to more accurately reflect voters' overall party preferences.

Calling this an "elegant" option, Mr Johnson said: "This is a genuinely radical alternative that only Labour in government can facilitate.""

Go for PR, PM Brown.

Electoral reform might be just the thing to give Labour a chance to be elected government again.

And what a boost to electoral reform it would be if our mother parliament changes to an elegant proportional representative system!

Frank Klees talks the economy, tax cuts, grassroots policy process, empowering MPs, education and autism during London Debates:

Below are some videos of Frank Klees taken from the Ontario PC Leadership debates.
-Darryl

The Economy:



Grassroots:

Video: Quotes from Frank Klees at the London Ontario PC Leadership Debate:

The daily drip drip drip of revelations of the unwise, ridiculous, in some cases illegal, and generally questionable expensing by MPs of Britain's mother parliament has evoked a call by the Archbishop of Canterbury to spare the feelings of the MPs:

"But Labour peer Lord Campbell Savours, one of the original campaigners for the Freedom of Information Act, said the archbishop's claims that the expenses controversy threatened democracy were "rubbish".

"It's not undermining democracy at all. It's not threatening democracy," he said. "It will lead to a change in the expenses system in the House of Commons, which many Members of Parliament would welcome.""

The Cat agrees with the Peer – the Archbishop is wrong on this score.

The press should continue to name them and shame them; that is the best way to lance the abscess of immoral expense claims, and usher in a better system.

Oh, and just when can Canadians expect similar incisive investigatory journalism regarding any defects in our system of remunerating our own MPs?

After talking tough for a week or so, the Liberals have started signalling that they will back off opposing Harper's Tories on changes to the 'unfair' EI rules.

The established pattern of sabre rattling followed by ignominious back tracking with tail between the legs is yet again showing itself, as this comment by Goodale shows:

"The Liberals and minority Conservatives have cited the proposal, estimated to cost up to $1.5 billion, as a potential election trigger, though there is some evidence the Liberals may not let it come to that.

The Liberals could enshrine the proposal in a motion the government could deem a non-confidence measure - potentially triggering an election if all opposition parties vote for it. But, they may avoid that by simply making their case through committees and in the daily question period.

“We have tried our best to prevent it becoming a political standoff because the most important thing is to correct the problem,” Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale said in an interview.

“The critical thing is not to have some kind of a political showdown. The crucial thing is to get EI changed. That is our principal objective.”

This type of behaviour (barking like a small lapdog but then fleeing when Harper harrumphs) is demeaning for the Liberal Party, and telegraphs to voters political ineptitude and lack of leadership acumen.

Ralph Goodale is wrong on this issue. The crucial thing is to replace the mean spirited, do-nothing Tory government with a government which, supported by the other opposition parties if needs be, can provide Canadians with progressive government.

Want to fix the EI unfairness? Replace the government, and fix that and a whole lot of other things as well.

With release of its ambitious fund raising campaign, aimed at pulling in $25 million each year to finance elections, the Liberal Party has started to put its money where its mouth is. The Harper Tory electoral machine cannot be beaten by talk alone; money to grease a modern election campaign is a must.

The Cat has two suggestions for the party on how to raise money by increasing the size of individual donations to the party.

These ideas capitalize on the management truism that it often costs less to get more business from existing customers than to win new customers. This does not mean that the party should not try to increase the number of individual donors; of course it must do so. But a big whack of money can be raised if you can persuade an individual donor to increase the size of his or her donation.

For example, if you can persuade a donor to add $1 to his or her usual $10 monthly donation, you have increased the cash obtained by a whopping ten percent.

These two ideas are based on the enormously successful McDonalds' marketing tactic of asking one simple question after each order (Do you want fries with that?), and on our deep rooted desire to get something for nothing.

The suggestions are:

1. Ask existing donors if they will agree to make a Matching Pledge by ticking off a box which says that they will increase their monthly donations by $1, $2, $5 or some other amount if the party does meet some stated target of increased donations (in a province and/or nationally). Asking this simple question is the equivalent to McDonalds' Do you want fries with that?, and also can be pitched to donors as their choice to reward the party for actually meeting its fund raising targets; and

2. Include a monthly lottery which pays prizes (lots of relatively small ones) to randomly selected winning donors.

And then sit back and watch the money flow in.

Liberals will raise your taxes provincially and federally

Credit: Toryboy1 on YouTube

The latest news of the accelerated Liberal fund raising programs is very positive:

"The Liberals are rushing ahead with a major change to the party’s organization, which only two weeks ago they had planned for the autumn, so they can be ready for a much more robust summer of activity. Emergency meetings of the Liberals’ various governing bodies are underway, with more planned for next week. The goal: a $25 million annual war chest and a vastly expanded grassroots organization to pay for it…

The fundraising plan is extraordinarily ambitious.

The Liberals would seek, within a year, to nearly quintuple the party’s revenues from private donations over the 2008 level. The new goal: an annual war chest of $25 million, built on a massively increased pool of donors who, in most cases, agree to give at least annually, and often several times per year.

Three mechanisms will be used for this objective:

• Membership in the Laurier Club, which is for people who contribute the maximum of $1,100 a year to the party, would be more than tripled to 10,000 members. A Leaders’ Circle will be created, with at least one member in every community in Canada with more than 50,000 people, to sign up new Laurier Club members.

• The Victory Fund, a more broad-based group of Liberal supporters who authorize monthly donations of $10, would get a major push with the goal of an eight-fold increase to 25,000 members within a year.

• Finally, the party would “make use of direct mail, telemarketing and established online/social media techniques to reach out to the millions of actual and potential Liberal supporters and sympathizers across Canada,” with the goal of raising $10,000,000 a year in small, one-off donations.

To say the least, it is not clear the Liberals can meet such ambitious targets."

Kudos to the Liberals’ new party president, Toronto lawyer Alfred Apps, and Rocco Rossi, who as the party’s executive director is in charge of fundraising for these ambitious efforts.

To help them achieve their aggressive but necessary aims, The Cat offers some hints, based on the proven management principle that 'what is measured, improves':

1. Let the public see what is happening with the fund raising efforts of the Liberal Party.

2. Publish (starting now with the history for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008) statistics of fund raising by the party on the LPC website, broken down into the categories set out below.

3. Then publish current fundraising efforts (same categories) for each month of 2009.

4. Also publish the targets for each riding for each of the next 3 years (2009, 2010 and 2011) which must be met for the $25 million per year to be reached.

5. At the same time, compare the Liberal results (on a riding by riding, province by province and nationally) with the fund raising results of the Bloc, NDP and Tory parties.

6. Show the statistics for each of the 308 ridings.

7. Have each of our 77 MPs adopt on average 3 other ridings to support in their fund raising efforts, so that each of the 308 ridings have an MP publicly responsible for raising the targets set for each riding. The allocation of ridings to sitting MPs could be made based on their location compared to the ridings held by the other 3 parties, and, if needed, by random allocations. The purpose is to fit in with the Liberal 308 riding strategy, and to avoid any 'orphan ridings' when it comes to fund raising efforts and responsibility.

8. Make sure that the statistics published identify each MP responsible for each riding, plus the Presidents of the local party organization. We will then be able to see at a glance which MPs are meeting targets, and to give those who are struggling more help to achieve their targets.

9. All the statistics should show the following break downs:

a. The total dollar funds raised (or to be raised in order to meet our $25 million target) in each riding.
b. That total divided by (i) the total voters in each riding, and (ii) the number of donors to the LPC in each riding.
c. Similar figures for each riding for each of the other 3 parties.
d. The amounts donated (broken down into size categories).

We will be able to compare relative fund raising efforts by riding, province and nationally, so as to identify problems and allocate resources to remedy shortfalls.

If ever Canada develops a Sherlock Holmes Prize for the best financial sleuthing by journalists, the Cat nominates David Baines of the Vancouver Sun for the award.

Who is David Baines?

"David Baines has been uncovering white collar crime, stock fraud in particular, for the past 23 years. He has an MBA from the University of Western Ontario and has won four National Newspaper Awards, a National Magazine Award and five Jack Webster Awards. His column appears regularly on Wednesdays and Saturdays, and on other days as events occur."

That is what his website says.

But those readers of the Sun who turn to his articles with delight know that he is much more than those prosaic words convey. They know him as a highly competent professional, who does his homework, and who is not afraid of taking on any of the powers that be in pursuit of truth, justice and the Canadian way.

If we have crooks in our back yard (and heaven knows BC has more than its share of good, bad and indifferent scoundrels) then you can be sure that sooner or later Baines will track them down and expose them.

Even if it means pointing out the systemic errors in the BC justice system or security laws and institutions.

And he writes about events and people in a refreshingly direct and entertaining way.

Take this, for example:

"He bragged that reporters are easy dupes: "I can say anything to you. Whether I practise it or not, you won't know. That's the thing with the media. All those things I was doing [drugs and alcohol] ... I was saying something completely different. Who knows? I might still be.""

Or this:

"On Nov. 26, I reported that the New York-based American Watercolor Society was having second thoughts about the gold medal they awarded Ottawa artist Sheryl Luxenburg last spring.

The society had learned that her entry, called Impermanence, had been derived from two photographs from Shutterstock.com, a California company that licenses the use of stock photography.

When I called Luxenburg on it, she became quite indignant: "You've got be kidding. You're just paparazzi looking for excitement. You're sensationalizing a situation that is ridiculous. Goodbye."

The society is now reporting that Luxenburg admitted contravening the rules and has returned her gold medal, plus the $4,000 cash prize. Still unrepentant, she dismisses the whole fiasco as "an innocent mistake.""

Thanks, David, for protecting investors.

And may you be the first to be awarded the Sherlock Holmes Prize, should we ever have one.

Frank Klees gaining momentum!

Traffic Models (Spain)
2pm Model Management (København)
Next Model Management (New York)
Iconic Management (Berlin)
Silent Models (Paris)
Black Model Management (Russia)
Elite Model Management (London)
-> her tfs forum topic

Louisa Models (München)

Unique Models (Copenhagen)
Traffic Models (Barcelona)
Storm Models (London)
IMG Models (Milano, New York)
Marilyn Agency (Paris)
-> her tfs forum topic

IMG Models
PT Models (Taiwan)
-> her tfs forum topic

Marilyn Model Agency (Paris, New York)
Joy Models Management (Milano)
Select (London)
Modelwerk (Hamburg)
-> her tfs forum topic

""Stealing," said one man pushing a baby in a pram. He is out of work and struggling to feed a growing family. Trade at Bailey's Cafe was brisk this lunchtime as people scurried in to escape the rain. Patricia Barber, one of the waitresses, summed up the mood of many. "Sack them all and start again," she said as she ferried out steaming plates of corned beef hash."

Those are the views of some of the constituents of a British MP about the expenses debacle which has enveloped Britain.

And the MP's view?

""This bloodfest has got to stop...otherwise we will have no democracy left," he said."

What lies behind the expenses mess in Britain? Hidden expenses, a lax system, and an enterprising newspaper which exposed the mess:

"Most MPs have to live in two places - in their constituencies and in London where they attend Parliament. They are allowed to claim expenses to cover the cost of running a second home. Details of what has been claimed on second home expenses have never been revealed before the Daily Telegraph got hold of a leaked copy of all the claims. Many MPs have been accused of extravagance, of over-claiming and avoiding tax on home sales."

And the reasoning of the committee of the House of Commons about the expenses of MPs? Laughable:

"The Commons authorities checked claims through basic steps like checking the identity of people who claimed, that claims were an "allowable item" and that receipts were provided if necessary. But ultimately the system of MPs' allowances was "self regulatory", as MPs were accountable to Parliament and their constituents at the ballot box, they argued."

However, the Commons authorities are partially correct, and judgment will be levied on MPs during coming elections. The initial views of voters can be gauged from opinion polls, and that message is dire: Labour will lose power next year.

Sir Peter (Duck Island) Viggers is an early victim:

"Sir Peter Viggers, whose gardening claims totalled £30,000, is to quit at "the direct request of David Cameron"."

One MP at least has a very realistic view of who is to blame:

"In an interview with the BBC, Ms Dorries, who was a nurse before she came into politics, said MPs were walking around "with terror in their eyes" and likened the atmosphere to that surrounding Senator Joseph McCarthy's "witch-hunts" of Communists during the 1950s. But speaking on the BBC's Today programme, Mr Pound dismissed the analogy as "facile" because "Senator McCarthy's victims were innocent". He acknowledged that the mood at Westminster was "very, very dark", adding: "It's like a slasher movie where every morning we come in and see who's still alive." But he said MPs had no-one to blame but themselves, and accused his colleagues of revelling in a sense of entitlement fostered by fees office staff who saw it as their job to maximise members' claims. "They were helping us over the cliff, but it's our fault for jumping," Mr Pound said."

Some cliff.

Some jump.
And it leads to a question for us: do we have a similar sense of entitlement on the part of our Canadian MPs? And a similar cliff?

George Lakoff is very specific about what to do and what not to do when your political opponent attacks you with an attempt to frame the discussion, or to frame the public perception of you.

And his advice is clear, commonsensical, and difficult to apply in some situations.

Michael Ignatieff has responded to the Tory framing ads (aka as 'attack ads') with a response which clearly shows that (1) he has not read Lakoff, (2) he does not understand the battle of framing, and (3) he is failing to respond properly to the Tory framing ads.

His response, in other words, plays into the trap set by the Tory ads, and allows them to continue to colour him their way.

Take these 'commandments' from George Lakoff, and compare the Ignatieff response to the Tory ads, and the Tory response to Ignatieff's response:

"In order to purposefully not think of an elephant, you have to think of an elephant. There are four morals.

Moral 1. Every word evokes a frame.

A frame is a conceptual structure used in thinking. The word elephant evokes a frame with an image of an elephant and certain knowledge: an elephant is a large animal (a mammal) with large floppy ears, a trunk that functions like both a nose and a hand, large stump-like legs, and so on.

Moral 2: Words defined within a frame evoke the frame.

The word trunk, as in the sentence "Sam picked up the peanut with his trunk," evokes the Elephant frame and suggests that "Sam" is the name of an elephant.
Moral 3: Negating a frame evokes the frame.

Moral 4: Evoking a frame reinforces that frame.

Every frame is realized in the brain by neural circuitry. Every time a neural circuit is activated, it is strengthened."

Ignatieff's response fits into the No-no of Morals 3 and 4: his response evokes the frame decided upon by the Tories (Ignatieff is a carpetbagger who was out of the country for years and years and only came back to become prime minister and who, if he failed, might leave Canada again), and reinforces that frame.

Ignatieff's response also gives the Tories another crack at spinning out the frame, as these responses show:

"The six TV ads the Conservatives are running across Canada paint Mr. Ignatieff as a pretentious political carpetbagger who returned home to satisfy political ambitions. One, called "Just Visiting" includes a clip of Mr. Ignatieff on U.S. TV referring to himself as an American.

Mr. Harper's press secretary, Dimitri Soudas, said last night the issue is not the years Mr. Ignatieff spent abroad, but that he came back only to try to become prime minister.

"Canadians who chose to work outside the country don't pretend that Canada is not their country," he said."

And this Tory response:

"Ryan Sparrow, a spokesperson for the Conservative party, said the Liberal leader is evading the point of their ads.

"The issue is not that Ignatieff worked outside the country," Sparrow said in an email. "The issue is that while outside the country he slammed Canada, Canadians and our flag - and perhaps most disturbingly - admitted that he would (again) leave Canada if unsuccessful in his political career. In other words, he's just visiting. Canadians should be able to expect more from their Prime Minister.""

The Tories are clearly winning this little spat, with significant negative consequences for Ignatieff and the Liberal Party.

The Cat's advice to Michael Ignatieff is short and simple: Get ahold of Lakoff's book Don’t Think Of An Elephant, and study it carefully.

Then order every Liberal MP to get a copy, and hold sessions (lead by Lakoff himself) to really really learn it.

Before it is too late and you become, in the minds of many Canadians, the itinerant carpetbagger that the Tories are framing you as.

Women Management
Storm Models (London)
Mega Models (Miami)
UNO (Barcelona)
-> her tfs forum topic

Mother Model Management (Missouri)
Next Model Management
-> her tfs forum topic