Modeling Journey

Charles

Karl Lagerfeld tells again


Lagerfeld was 2 days for visiting Kernersville, where she again railed against Heidi Klum. However, he did not leave it at that, but still pulled over her husband Seal. has

About Heidi He said like in the first place again, as a few months back: "I do not know. Claudia knows not. Never was in Paris that we know not "(How did he actually speaks to Claudia Schiffer? Ask me how it is that?)

Okay, this is likely Heidi Klum itch very little, just as the then eject it was not an avant-garde or catwalk model. yes, no one denies, not even she (? she has ever claimed that because ever), but what he then said of Seal, goes one step further and somewhat lower among the glittering silver belt:

" , I no dermatologist, but his skin am I would not have it. Since I have survived better. He has such a crater "

Yes, exactly, because Seals skin is also a consequence of growing old. He probably will be clear that this is a scar skin disease. With (more or less) objective criticism that has to do nothing more ...

Harper, hoping to avoid being felled as prime minister of a 'do little' government by getting a failing mark from all three opposition parties on his economic report, offered a voluminous study which did more to muddy the waters than to clarify matters. In fact, despite his positive spin, the report gave broad hints of the relative inaction of this non-believing government in actually spending the stimulus package funds:

"In a campaign-style address in Cambridge, Ont., he said that 80% of the plan is "already being implemented."

Grammar watchdogs feel free to correct me, but the plan has "already been implemented" or it is "being implemented." This fuzzy use of language seems to be another attempt to mislead people into thinking that new overpasses are sprouting up all over the country.

In fact, while $20.6-billion of the $22.7-billion to be spent this year has been approved by Cabinet and the Treasury Board and is with government departments, by no stretch of the imagination could it be described as being "out of the door." (Many projects have not yet been given the green light, far fewer have seen cheques handed over - something that only happens after the fact, when the feds have been invoiced and completed their due diligence.)

Take the largest pool of cash, the $4-billion infrastructure stimulus fund. The government aims to spend $2-billion this year and the Prime Minister talked at great length about the 3,000 individual projects "that are now getting underway." Yet page 138 of the Report to Canadians document reveals that only $1.1-billion of the $2-billion fund has been committed and that money only began flowing to those projects last month. Progress has been extremely slow - which should not be news to the government, or the Liberal party."

The NDP has said that they will vote against the Tories if the Liberals introduce a non-confidence motion over the report. The Bloc has said it will as well.

That leaves the choice squarely in the laps of the Liberals.

And, as Ignatieff said, they have been watching the Tory government like hawks.

What to do?

Pull the plug now and plunge the nation into another inconclusive election, or back off and support Harper yet again, giving voters the impression that the Liberals are best suited to play backup in the band of governance, rather than to be lead singer.

The Cat thinks that Ignatieff and the Liberals have one way to solve this classic dilemma, in a manner which benefits ordinary Canadians.

The secret to untying the Gordian knot facing the Liberals is to revisit the test which Ignatieff himself imposed on the Tories when he destroyed the NDP-LPC coalition government by supporting the Harper government.

Back then, he said this:

“We will be watching like hawks to make sure that the investments Canadians need actually reach them,” Ignatieff said.

That is the key: how to make sure that the Tory government actually spends the billions allocated in their budget so as to create jobs fast.

The report card is a whitewash exercise, designed to spin the line that the Tories are moving expeditiously in pushing money out the door. The facts clearly indicate the opposite: the control-freaks in this government are not really committed to spending money to create jobs but in spending money as public relations exercises, designed to wring out the maximum political value for the party.

It's as if Santa has decided to take six months to hand out Christmas goodies so that he can bask in the thank-yous of the grateful recipients.

So, what should Ignatieff do?

My suggestion is that he tables in Parliament a Liberal paper which sets out conditions. If Harper agrees to the conditions and acts on them forthwith (before the Liberal date for a non-confidence motion), then the Liberals will support the government.

If Harper refuses, then he will be faced with the Liberal non-confidence motion, and will have brought down his own downfall.

So what will the Liberal paper contain?

Simply these items:

1. A multi-party committee will be formed, with representatives from all four parties in the House, proportional to their seats there, to oversee the spending of the stimulus funds. This committee will be called the Economic Implementation Committee.

2. The committee will make decisions by majority votes.

3. All projects over a threshold value ($5 million?) which would fit into the category of projects qualifying for federal stimulus funds under the Tory budget, will be approved by and expedited by the committee.

4. The committee will have legislated fast-track power to overrule any existing laws or regulations which impede the speedy beginning of and funding of the projects.

This proposal means the Tory government stays in power until the next report card is due, and their budget is the governing instrument, but that the boost to the economy takes place as fast as is feasible, through the actions of the committee.

If Ignatieff takes The Cat's advice, it will be up to Harper to decide whether to form the Economic Implementation Committee, or to take his chances.

And if he takes his chances, he will have to explain to Canadians why he decided to have another costly election, over the issue of how to implement the stimulus funding so badly needed by jobless Canadians in a faster, more feasible way.

That would be a tough argument for Harper to make. Not even a rather stout and very partial former television personality could help Harper make that work.

Harper delivered his second probationary report to the opposition parties, called the Second Economic Report, and managed to grab headlines by saying that his government was doing a wonderful job and had managed to commit 80% of the funding required for the 2009/2010 year.

"This report indicates that 80 per cent of the measures are either flowing, or there are commitments in place that will allow the funds to flow to specific projects and initiatives."

And, what is more, Harper's guys have moved heaven and earth to get the money out of the door and into the economy, as Table 1.2 claims:

"Canada’s Economic Action Plan is designed to get stimulus out as quickly and effectively as possible in order to have the maximum impact on jobs. That is why the Government moved aggressively to deliver budget spending up to 14 months faster than the usual process."

Remember the NDP-LPC coalition which forced Harper's hand?

"The Liberal leader announced he’ll move an amendment to the budget which will require the government to table three detailed progress reports to Parliament starting in March. If the amendment passes, Liberals will not vote against the budget. But Ignatieff said the Liberals are prepared to defeat the government later should any of the progress reports show that the Tories had failed to implement some budget measures or that the budget wasn’t working.

“We are putting this government on probation,” he told a news conference. “Each of these reports will be an opportunity to withdraw our confidence should the government fail Canadians.”

Ignatieff said the threat of a Liberal-NDP coalition forced the government to include $40 billion worth of stimulative measures in the budget; measures the Tories don’t really believe in.

“And now the job of a responsible Opposition is to hold them to their word, to force them to deliver and, if they don’t deliver, to replace them.”

The amendment specifies dates for tabling the status reports — March 26, June 23 and Sept. 10. They are timed to coincide with supply bills, which are automatically considered confidence votes."

More specifically, Ignatieff said he would be watching Harper's Tories "like a hawk."

What exactly was Ignatieff going to be watching like a hawk?

In Ignatieff's words:

“We will be watching like hawks to make sure that the investments Canadians need actually reach them,” Ignatieff said.

Ignatieff put his finger on the issue: what Canadians needed was cash – hard cash – actually flowing into projects which created jobs.

Not promises.

Not "commitments to fund", which is what Harper's report card talks about.

Let's match Harper's report card against what Ignatieff says was obtained from him.

Note that Ignatieff said the NDP-LPC coalition "forced the government to include $40 billion worth of stimulative measures in the budget; measures the Tories don’t really believe in."

Now let's take the actual progress to date – the amount "committed" in Harper's report card.

That's $13.2 billion (if we exclude the GM/Chrysler rescue package). Check it yourself – go to Table 1.3 on page 14 of the report card.

And that makes only 33% "committed" of the total amount of $40 billion that Ignatieff was so pleased by.

Now, ask yourself: if your kid came home and started crowing about how well he or she had done because they scored overall 33%, what would you say?

"Nice job, here's some cash, off to celebrate you are!"

Or would you say: "That's just not good enough. That is a failing grade. You are grounded."

Let's see if any of the Bloc, NDP or Liberal parties will give Harper a pass on his 33% score.

Threehundredandeight has the reasons summarized, based on the latest polls:

"The NDP's result isn't horrible, and is in fact a little better than what we've seen lately, but Jack Layton would be taking a huge gamble if he supported a non-confidence motion, as he will surely see his caucus fall to under 30 seats. He could even lose as many as half of his MPs. The Bloc has nothing to gain in an election, except maybe a return to areas that the Conservatives have won in the last two elections. But they are likely to see their caucus drop by a handful of seats, their portion of the vote drop by a few points, their finances to drop by a few million dollars, and their political capital to take a big hit."

The only thing the Liberals can do right now is attend to the fleshing out of our policies, make sure that members get a chance to review them before they are cast in stone by the elite, and gather in as much cash as possible in preparation for an election in, say, a year's time.

Oh, and they can consider another course of action: cut a bargain with the Dippers and the Bloc. This would have to commit the three parties to not run candidates against each other in ridings now held by each party, and for both the Bloc and NDP to have some kind of say over what a minority Liberal government would do once in power.

If this is anathema to Ignatieff and his advisors, the alternative is as I laid out above: get ready and wait until the Tory mandate expires and they are forced to call an election.

Klees second interview with Stephen Taylor

Conservatives both provincially and federally are very lucky to have the talents of Stephen Taylor working on our side. I am constantly amazed by what he does online for our party. I appreciate his coverage of this Ontario PC Leadership Race and the interviews he has done with all candidates. Below is the second interview he has conducted with Frank Klees. To visit Stephen Taylor's blog, please click here.
-Darryl

Stephen Taylor interviews Frank Klees (2nd interview) from Stephen Taylor on Vimeo.

Recent polls (especially today's breakdown of the 905 wipeout of Harper's 'suburban' votes) have shown the Liberals edging ahead of the Tories, in both of the vote-rich provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

If an election was called right now, these polls mean we will get more votes than we did last time (a paltry 26% of total votes across Canada), and win more seats.
However, two things make a minority Liberal government (let alone a majority one) a long shot right now.

Firstly, past polls have shown that the Tories do better once the writ is dropped and can boost their numbers by around 4% (with a similar 4% reduction in Liberal votes) during the campaign. So any margin which is less than 4% means that the Tories might still be able to change the dynamics of the game through their better campaigning, and eke out a minority government.

Secondly, Jack Layton would need to have his head read if he in any way voted with the Liberals on any non-confidence motion so as to throw the Tories out of power. His polling numbers are being badly hit, and waiting is better for the NDP than doing a lemminglike lateral arabesque off the cliff edge. Likewise, Duceppe needs to walk wide of the cliff edge, given the resurgent Liberal numbers in Quebec.

What does this mean?

Simply that an election in the next 12 to 18 months is highly unlikely, unless Jack Layton develops a Joe Clark-electoral death wish, and steps off the cliff to personal (and party) oblivion.

So where does this leave us?

With time.

Time for Harper to get his act together. This is the man who understands discipline (usually), and who lusts for power. He united the right; pulling his shell shocked troops together is not an impossible task for him.

Time for the economy to start turning around, with many indices showing positive and rising improvements.

Time for the Tories to spend a few more millions defining (framing) Ignatieff.

Time for the Liberals to spend their precious time in Parliament pounding the Tories on relatively insignificant issues (the tapes, for example) while avoiding telling voters what the party stands for and why the voters should vote Liberal.

At the moment, without any comprehensive Liberal set of policies announced and laid before the voters, the party, under its new leader, seems to be banking on becoming the next government by default. If you don't like Harper and his Tories, try us.
This default-choice strategy relies on voters thinking that they have been presented a blank cheque, which voters can fill in. It relies on voters – having tired of Harper's political mean spiritedness – deciding that the devil they don't know is better than the one they do.

But this is really an insult to voters, and courts disaster because, as the pollster pointed out, the Tories have still maintained a 30% grip on the electorate nationwide, and have the luxury of time because the NDP is unlikely to decide to (voluntarily) transform themselves into lemmings.

For us to regain power, we need to place before the voters a comprehensive, liberal set of policies and programs, so that Canadians may know what we stand for, and what they will get if they decide to change from the Tories to another government.

Having narrowly escaped being turfed out as leader of the Labour Party by revolting backbenchers, Gordon Brown has come up with constitutional reform as his battle cry.

And as part of that, he suggests that Britain actually discuss using a written constitution!

"Second, setting out the rights that people can expect but also the responsibilities that come with those rights as a British citizen is a fundamental step in balancing power between Government, Parliament and the people. Mr Speaker, it is to some people extraordinary that in Britain we still have a largely unwritten constitution. I personally favour a written constitution but I recognise that changing this would represent an historic shift in our constitutional arrangements so such proposals will be subject to wide public debate and ultimately the drafting of such a constitution would be a matter for the widest possible consultation with the British people themselves."

Well, Mr. Brown, you can learn from the masterpiece which we created when Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the last great Canadian prime minister, brought home the constitution and included a gem of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in it.

Feel free to borrow our Charter, Mr. Brown: you could do a lot worse!