Thursday, November 01, 2007

Boo!

Kady O'Malley has the full run down of Halloween in Ottawa (including Harper's witty "man in the brown suit" costume). Although he dressed as Laurier, Dion did did provide a big scare to Liberal backbenchers by musing about raising the GST. It's probably not a smart thing to go around talking about something like that unless you're going to do it, but I do think it would be interesting to see a Liberal campaign plank calling for a restoration of the 7% GST, with all the revenue raised either going to income tax cuts or income splitting. Dion's got to show he stands for something next campaign and it would certainly be a bold position to take.

In other news...

1. As a big V for Vendetta fan, I enjoyed the Wingnutterer's look back on the "Income Trust Treason".

2. Stockwell Day has announced that the Canadian government will no longer oppose death sentences for Canadians abroad.

3. I don't really get the full gist of his criticism, but the man who could have been Premier is going after Stelmach hard on his royalty review compromise.

4. Jack Layton may have an ally in his quest to end ATM fees across Canada. It appears that Brian Mulroney was so sick of ATM fees back in 1993 that he needed to get $300,000 from Karlheinz Schreiber in cold, hard cash. Yes, it looks bad that he didn't declare it on his taxes either but I'm sure there's a logical explanation for everything. Unfortunately, I'm only at page 376 of his memoirs but I'm sure Brian will explain everything fully by the end of it!

5. And a big round of congrats for Andrew Coyne - the new national editor of Macleans!

Labels: , , ,

posted by calgarygrit at 8:06 p.m.

21 Comments:

  • Am I the only one who fails to see the link between Airbus, Schreiber, and Mulroney to this government?

    By Blogger sir john a., at 9:46 p.m.  

  • You mean the Harper Government? Well they're also the Government of Canada. And some people think it's about time for the Government of Canada to get to the bottom of this.

    By Blogger Dan McKenzie, at 10:19 p.m.  

  • At the same time someone should look into the mysterious case of the Auberge Gran Mere...

    Napkins, sterno, fires, destroyed records...

    What possibly could have happened???

    And all Chretien could say was Fore!

    Sorry Dan, cant help twisting the knife...

    :)

    By Blogger conservativehabsfan, at 10:24 p.m.  

  • You should see the one where I had Garth in the "V" Hair and hat, he looked like a Yittish Terrorist, LOL

    By Blogger Zorpheous, at 11:37 p.m.  

  • Another Red Tory bits the dust:

    Harper's team dumps city-friendly candidate

    Nov 01, 2007 04:30 AM
    Susan Delacourt
    Ottawa Bureau, The Star

    “OTTAWA – The federal Conservatives have ousted their candidate for Toronto Centre, 43-year-old international-trade lawyer Mark Warner, and he says it's because he wanted to play up urban and social issues that are at odds with the master Conservative campaign strategy.”

    “Conservative officials have been actively resisting Warner's emphasis on housing, health care and cities issues, he said, even blocking him from participating in a Star forum on poverty earlier this year and pointedly removing from his campaign literature a reference to the 2006 international conference on AIDS in Toronto – which Warner attended but Prime Minister Stephen Harper did not.”

    "The Conservative party that I'm from doesn't remove a duly nominated candidate. It's supposed to be based on grassroots principles," Barr said.”

    “She finds it odd that for all the Tories' talk of outreach to ethnic and cultural communities, they have ousted a black man, born in Trinidad and Tobago, who immigrated to Canada as child in the 1960s and went on to attend Osgoode Hall law school and have a significant career in international trade law.”

    Also see CBC’s report on October 31 on the removal of Warner and Brent Barr. Happy reading!

    By Blogger JimTan, at 8:51 a.m.  

  • I disagree w/ Kady. Laureen Harper isn't dressed as a cat. She's cleary emulating Ace Frehly, but didn't want to go for the full white face paint.

    By Blogger Independent, at 9:13 a.m.  

  • Regarding income splitting, it always confused me why socialist/feminists would be against it. After all, it removes the financial disincentive for parents to stay home and raise their own children. In essence, it provides women more choice, rather than forcing them to work.

    However, I've been set straight. Apparently the reasoning is that in a marriage generally the men get paid more than the women. Therefore, in the absense of a financial disincentive to do so, the woman will stay home. Disallowing income splitting is felt to compensate for that, giving the women a logical argument to work (should she wish to do so) rather than stay home.

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 1:34 p.m.  

  • so Chretien campaigned to get rid of the GST and now Steffi wants to raise.

    It is policy consistency like this that endears the Liberal Party to ordinary Canadians

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:10 p.m.  

  • Robert,

    Non first-wave feminists consistently OPPOSE choice when it comes to women in the workplace. They believe that women should be there and are willing to engage in social engineering - eg. support for national daycare, hiring quotas and equal wage legislation - all of which subsidize or make easier one particular choice, at an expense* to women that do not make those choices (as well as men).

    By Blogger french wedding cat, at 2:51 p.m.  

  • “Non first-wave feminists consistently OPPOSE choice when it comes to women in the workplace. “

    Gentlemen! Gentlemen! (I use that term sarcastically)

    Your opinions about women and feminists are interesting. (Not to me they aren’t)

    I suggest that you should get your answer directly in a feminist forum. They can set you straight.

    I am sure that big strong men like yourselves aren’t afraid to chat with dumb feminist chicks. No?

    By Blogger JimTan, at 9:11 p.m.  

  • Sir John A: the connections to Harper are:

    1. The Government of Canada paid $2 million to Mulroney based on very incomplete information. It is not unreasonable to ask the government to investigate when alarming new information comes to light, including bald-faced lies by Mulroney about his relationship with Schreiber and how many times they had met. I mean, come on, how many people has Mulroney met alone in hotel rooms to receive secret cash payments of $300,000 that he can't remember meeting Schreiber.

    2. Harper's Attorney General promised Canadians that the Government of Canada would investigate the Schreiber claims and the cash payments for no work made in hotel rooms with no witnesses that were not declared on Mulroney's taxes until several years later. An investigation was in fact set up. And then POOF investigation suddenly disbanded and not even a report. Hmmmmmm.

    By Blogger Ted Betts, at 11:44 a.m.  

  • Wow Jim, what's your problem???

    Was anything I said even the slightest bit disrespectful to feminists?

    Not everyone who fails to immediately understanding every feminist policy is some Al Bundy - Archie Bunker cross.

    Open your mind up a crack!

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 12:28 p.m.  

  • "Was anything I said even the slightest bit disrespectful to feminists?"

    As you said, you have already been set straight. No?

    By Blogger JimTan, at 1:58 p.m.  

  • “Wow Jim, what's your problem???”

    Don’t get the wrong idea! I am an alpha male, and I don’t have an affinity to feminists. I respect strength and ability. Many feminists have both, and they can best explain themselves.

    There’s no point crapping in a Liberal forum. Sort out the issues directly (like Robert). Or, crap in an anti-feminist forum.

    Yes?

    By Blogger JimTan, at 3:21 p.m.  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 3:24 p.m.  

  • "2. Stockwell Day has announced that the Canadian government will no longer oppose death sentences for Canadians abroad."

    Not quite. Not what he said. But a nice liberal smear attempt just the same. Smear & fear, that's all you have left after your leader bombs and your policies don't exist any more.

    Nothing is more dangerous than a cornered, wounded rat, or in the case of the LPC, a bunch of rats.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:40 p.m.  

  • Laureen Harper appears to be dressed as either Catwoman or Black Cat.

    By Blogger The Invisible Hand, at 5:23 p.m.  

  • Dear CG,

    Please, you must get off the fence.

    Surely you don't think that an inquiry in to Mulroney stuff is a worthy exercise.

    I mean, how would the answers change policy or matter to us?

    I ask intensely curious as to your answer.

    In my mind, you are the anti-Chuckercanuck. Meaning, you are Chuckercanuck for Liberals. IF that's the case, then you would admire Mulroney as Chuckercanuck admires Chretien.

    Did Chretien to smelly stuff? sure! Does Chuckercanuck want an inquiry into Chretien's Shawinigan/BDC dealings, no way! What a waste. So isn't a Mulroney inquiry as much of a waste? IMO, yes. IYO? That's the question.

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 11:12 p.m.  

  • Consider the size of the crime here. Brian Mulroney received 300,000 dollars. The wrongful suit charge cost us 2 million dollars - not to mention the cost of the inquiry, which was also, almost certainly in the millions.

    ANOTHER Mulroney inquiry would be like hiring a private detective to hunt down missing socks.

    If I were Mulroney or Chretien, I would welcome a chance for another 2 million dollars of taxpayer money and an apology from the government.

    By Blogger french wedding cat, at 1:12 p.m.  

  • PS: I would add the Ipperwash inquiry to that list. It cost plenty and found nothing of interest. OOh Mike Harris (and this is the best they could come up with - they couldn't even corroborate this) said "get the F'ing Indians off the park."

    What we need to do is take control over these kinds of inquiries out of the hands of politicians. Yes the public may want answers, but that doesn't mean the evidence is necessarily there. Moreover, when you politicize inquiries you can get pressure to find something. What you find may not be illegal, or even relevant - most of us have something we wouldn't want the public to know.

    By Blogger french wedding cat, at 1:16 p.m.  

  • Fred - well then, you're free to clarify what exactly Stock's position is.

    Chucker - I'm not sure an inquiry is neccesary...but I certainly wouldn't mind seeing Brian get into a bit of trouble over this.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 6:59 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home