I knew it would eventually come to this in the NHL:

Don't say I didn't warn you, even though it was fairly far down on the list of things I've been warning people about.

Anti Government nutbar David Orchard to sue the exhalted Stephen Harper and his vehicle of Canadian Purity:

This came to me in an e-mail while I was hammered. This is a dishonourable way to treat a political opponent and amounts to blackmail. I dare the Conservative Party to sue me for that statemenrt given the fact that the incredibly classy Willaim MacBeatth has already accused my campaign of being a Liberal plant. Bring it on you hucksters!

Dear Friends,
David Orchard will be back in court this week, this time for refusing to sign a release demanded by the Conservative Party in exchange for returning the donations it owes him from his leadership campaign in 2003.
The Conservative Party has acknowledged that it owes the monies, ca $70,000 -- $55,000 in individual donations to David Orchard’s leadership campaign and $15,000 refundable portion of his candidate deposit plus now interest and legal costs. The Conservative Party is refusing to return them unless David signs a release promising not to sue Peter MacKay or the Conservative Party for anything they did leading up to the merger. The Conservative Party has gone to court to ask that Orchard be forced to accept this sweeping release which denies him his legal and constitutional rights on other matters, not related to the donations.
For those of you in area who can, we hope that you will plan to support David with your presence at this trial which will take place Tuesday, January 31, 10: 00 am. EST in Superior Court, 393 University Ave. Toronto (between Dundas and Queen streets on the East side of University Avenue). We do not know the actual courtroom that the trial takes place in so you will have to go up to the 10th floor of the Superior Court building to check the board for the courtroom number that will be assigned to us. The trial should be listed as "The Conservative Party vs David Orchard." Do not hesitate to ask court officials for help if you need it in order to find the courtroom.
I am attaching (below) a letter by Marjaleena Repo outlining the history to this case. You can also view the legal documents on our site: www.davidorchard.com
Sincerely,
Grant Orchard tel: 416-778-7027 fax: 416-778-6348 grantorchard@bellnet.ca

Now these are the kind of Conservatives this conservative can get behind!

David Cameron, leader of the British Conservative Party has announnced that the Conservative economiic program puts tax cuts squarely in the rear:

"When it comes to the economy, I am absolutely clear that stability and responsibility come first, second, and third as our priorities, and that they come before the commitment to cut taxes,"

-David Cameron

Ooh, gee, so when Her Majesty's governmentt is billions of quid in the red it might be best to build economic stabilisation into one's budgeting and put the nation into cyclical surplus, so that taxes can eventually be lowered while meeting the nation's social needs. If only they could realise that here in CANADA!

Cameron wants government spending to rise slower than growth but at a rate fast enough to continue to protect (read: slowly expand and add to) public services. I would take minor issue with this, as Galbraith has pointed out, Government must grow faster than the economy, because economic transactions become more complex and provide more opportunity for market failure. The only way to reduce the size of government is to simplify the economy. But that doesn't mean less economic actors, that means constraints on the compexity and variety of transactions. I wouldn't want to regulate consumer choice out of existence, so I've really no opttion, but to meet change as it comes with government intervention and regulation where necessary.

Anyway, given the alternative I'm happy that Britain has rediscovered classical conservatism. Now if only the rest of us could do the same.

I've posted enough for one day dammit! But then I came across this:





































Check this guy out at www.dieselsweeties.com he's good and stuff.

Well if Steve Smith can do it so can I. Here is 1404 words on the Conservative victory based on my alcohol fuelled boasting.

This election Stephen Harper has won the most exceedingly weak mandate in Canadian political history, perhaps excepting the Clark interregnum of 1979. Joe Clark also won 36% of the vote but the Liberal party's over-concentration in Quebec brought them 40% and less seats. Clark declared he intended to govern as though he had a majority. This was the only untruth that the Right Honourable Charles Joseph Clark ever uttered in his storied political career, which he failed to correct. Joe Clark had been handed a weak mandate and proceeded to govern cautiously, repudiating some of the most contentious parts of his platform. From the privatisation of Petro Canada to the recognition of Israeli control of Jerusalem by way of moving the embassy there, Joe had backed away from those pledges which were not part of the Canadian consensus.

Joe finally realized that he might want to propose some relatively bold measures in the House and thus John Crosbie's Mukluk budget was introduced. The centrepiece of which was an intelligent consumption tax which would ensure a more efficient and stable energy sector, while not causing a runaway increase in gas prices: an eighteen cents per litre excise tax on gasoline. Something which seems innocuous today, which was far less radical than the NEP, which still put Clark on the nationalist and interventionist side of the issue. The NDP and the Liberals sensing an unpopular position which would have to be explained to the Canadian people brought down the budget and with it the government. Yes, Paul Wells ought to add a 5th rule of Canadian politics:

Whoever has to use more words loses

And so Stephen Harper's advisors knew this. It was his advisor Brian Mulroney who won in 1984 screaming the words "I had no option!" back in John Turner's face, while he did his damnedest to explain which bastard was really responsible.

It was Brian Mulroney who's Free Trade was easier to digest and easier to misinterpret than John Turner's, "This agreement makes it impossible to maintain Canada's independence."

Peter MacKay's we can beat the Liberals beats the we are fighting to retain a moderate alternative to the Liberals and the Alliance that Orchard, Flora, et al were countering with.

So Harper simply said: Taxes up (They weren't) savings down (not national savings) and appealed cynically to the most myopic and cynical vision of Canada. They actually walked the two blocks to the polls this year and Stephen Harper was swept into office on a thundering tsunami of shrug! Now the Liberals have only to wait for Harper to begin governing to have themselves proven right. The only question is how deluded are both parties' hackocracies going to be. Will Harper's people say: "Yes Stephen, this is your mandate for change. Start boldly. Anybody who claims that they weren't voting for that hasn't read our party policy booklets." Or, will they say, "Let's start talking with the Liberal leadership, since we really are closer to them than to the BQ, and see what we can agree on getting through the house and take our chances. If the opportunity comes to pry off a couple of back benchers from the Grits then we can also deal with the NDP." Will they govern honestly or will they govern under the expectation that the Liberals will be as cravenly obstructive in opposition and partisan as they were?

I also wonder about the Liberals, but I won't have to for long. With people like Ignatief and Orchard in the party they will acttually begin to have substantive debate returning to the fore. That will in effect be Martin's greatest gift to the party. That he knew when to leave before the party began to rot at the roots. Turner made the opposite mistake, when a party was atttempting to find itself and when it was just beginning to come together, he left, allowing Chretien and his oatmeal campaign to sweep into the party leadership. It was this move which has trapped the Liberal party talking in circles for so long that the verbaige had lost all meaning. The Liberals feel chastened. This is good, for they won the campaign, but lost power through their government. They would do well to be Cameronesque in opposition and actually give the fairly routine government business rapid assent so that parliament can be dominated by those issues and ideas that truly do divide the country. In this way the Liberal party can both unite and divide the country, fulfilling Peter Newman's most over used quote about a leader as one who takes national anxieties long buried and lifts them to the surface. If the Liberals want to retain their still strong hold on the higher offices of the nation, they will not act like the Conservatives in opposition. They will be a party of thinkers. The leader will allow freer reign to MPs and the party will begin to like the taste of real debate and constructive criticism. Realising that Canadians are looking for an undiciplined party that won't scare the bejessus out of them will be the first step. The Carolyn Parrishes of the Liberal Party will continue to chill Andrew Coyne's blood, but then so does anyone to the left of Terrence Corcoran The Liberals can show that they better reflect a diversity of opinion in their ranks than do the Conservatives, because the Liberal party is no longer obscured by the veil of cabinet.

The Liberal party may once again become a big tent of principled persons like the Liberals during the Pearson-Trudeau transition. However, it may well continue to be nothing more than an expression of vehicular politics and stand ultimately for nothing. But this would be beneath the steely efficiency of the LPC. They know that the people also need the vision thing even if its faked and the Grits will be prepared to try out many models. American liberal, Liberal Conservative, Trudeau Liberal, Business Liberal, We don't like the Tories Liberal. They'll all be well represented at the next LPC convention and hopefully the party will have the intelligence not to pick a polar opposite of the government, but rather someone who solidifies the Canadian consensus and goes on to focus the debate on very specific issues such as foreign relations and the nature of federalism par example.

Stephen Harper is likely deluded into thinking that LCD or Lowest Common Denominator politics works. It does work, but it only does so for so long. Remember Brian may have won back to back majorities, but he destroyed his party and the legittimacy of its thinkers for years to come. People get smarter with more time and they will wise to you. Will you wise up to them? Consider:

Those blatantly simplistic anti-government votes that you appealed for with lines from your commercials like, "It seems like you get to Ottawa and no one can touch you," will see you. Being Prime Minister. In the Canadian capital. In Ottawa. And you'll become the new reason why their paychecks don't go as far as they like, that that clerk in line treated them brusquely. They'll be reminded of your GST cut, which at first seemed welcome relief, but after a while became an unbearable burden at 5%. Mothers who see their child tax benefit rolled back and their taxes going up in the wake of your new child care cheques will continue to blame government and when they realize that they were putting their faith in a bill of goods will they blame themselves? No. They'll blame you. And Frank McKenna, or Stephane Dion, who can out bookish you, or Ralph Goodale, or Michael Ignatief, or maybe even David Orchard will be able to wipe that 7% (5%/2*3) of the electorate out from under your feet. Even if these people simply don't show up it will be enough to cost you the next election. As Alan Gregg noted after the 1979 election: "The reasons for voting clark were six to one negative." If you are foolish enough to believe that you won the election because more people voted for you I pity you and I pity Canada because of the governance that you will inflict upon us.

So Stephen, have a fun 2 years. Just don't forget who you're renting the house from.

Spoken like a true opposition party:

"We haven't gone to the point of analysing the proposals that are going to be brought forward by the government, or to prepare our own,"

Jack Layton regarding the Conservative policy corner stone of a GST cut.

Well 17.8% of Canadians, this is the efffecttive third party that you elected. One with no strategy ideas of how to gain an in with the Conservative government. How does the NDP's post modern social policy work to thier advantage when dealing with a government with largely reactionary or non-existant views? How does an economically interventionist party deal with an economically continentalist party? What tensions will the Conservative agenda create in the NDP caucus regarding nationalism? Did anybody in the NDP heirarchy think to ask these questions. I could tell the NDP exacly how to play its continenalist, interventionist, post-modernist, asymetral federalist, and delegationary tendencies in the next parliament, but then I'd be giving non-obvious strategy avice to a party that I oppose on all but one of those fronts and on that one I am weakly supportive. All I can say to the NDP is:

Rona Ambrose - po-mo
Peter MacKay - strong party
Laurence Cannon - asymetricalist
Laurie Hawn - continentalist, but you'll have to hold your nose on military integration
Loyala Hearn - the closest thing you'll get to an interventionist in the Conservative party

There. That's as close as you come to having an in with this party. Hope you enjoyed your 4.8 billion dolars in new spending. The Conservatives will claw that back and more. Plus there's no electoral reform, so the next 5% of the popular vote could easily yield Mr. Harper a majority. Ah well, all the better to destroy the Liberals and replace them with a party that is less inclusinve and more in bed with special interests.

I'm now going to take a shower.

Ooh, very corrupt Liberals:

Federal ethics probe clears Dosanjh of wrongdoing, slams former Tory MP.

To Quote Defeated Liberal MP Andy Hladyshevsky:

"I don't like the way the Conservatives are spreading the word 'corruption' like ketchup into every thing that every good person in government stands for."

Did the Conservatives kick Gurmant out of caucus after the tapes were released? No.

Did they ever say that the Liberals may have been innocent on this one despite the fact that Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay definitely should know what one of thier parliamentary attack dogs were doing? No.

Will they now run a government that respects the law? I'll leave you to ask that question and give you a link to a party that was actually able to keep 'la scandale' in perpective.

Well 36% of you asked for a renewal of Brain Mulroney's place in the government of Canada. Have fun.

Well we're movin' on up:

In 2004 the PCs were 8th in popular vote. Behind the Marajuanna Party and the Christian Heritage Party. Today we beat the pot heads. Vindication! Canada's 7th party! Time for a convention! Exclamation marks won't stop!

In other news:

In 2 years I'll hate to say I told ja so. So be forewarned.

Colby Cosh turned down my offer of a dinner if Heward finished second. Good thing too. He got clocked. Winning a respectable 3.6% of the vote he still placed dead last.

Also I won $230 since the BQ got less than 58 seats.

I'm shocked that Paulie announced he's quitting immediately. Tracy's soldiering on for the time being tho.

No bet with Colby, it's probably for the best.

Now get out and vote dammmt!

We have been haxxored or something!

www.pcparty.org WTF!

Edited!

Never mind. It seems to be working now. I dunno what that was, maybe my internet, but it was sent to an ad site. It works gooder now. I'll just be adjustimg my tinfoil hat if anybody needs me.

Like Dief; Conservatives I would like to see win, but still woudn't vote for:

Lois Brown:

Belinda's/Magna's $40,000 donation to David Orchard's campaign was the political p;oison pill that prevented him from effectively criticising the hand she had in screwing PC's over.

Laurie Hawn:

Arrogant investor arsehole, but running against the lady who is repsonsible for teargassing Sinclair Stevens amoung others.

Stockwell Day:

Because if Canadians are going to elect Conservatives, they deserve the full treatment. Have us invade the rogue nation of France while we're at it.

Dear Canada:

You deserve the government you elect. Don't give me that 'they don't represent me' or 'I didn't vote, therefore I'm not responsible' bullshit. Why didn't you run? I didn't run because I'm not legally allowed. What's your excuse?

And another thing:

In the year 2006 I resolve to: Bring back disco. Get your resolution here

2nd try too. This would be why:


PRESS RELEASE: PC PARTY ALIVE AND GROWINGFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:January 22, 2006 Toronto, Ontario - To quote Mark Twain in the context of the PC Party, "The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated" . stated Tracy Parsons, Leader of the Progressive Canadian Party. "The "party that was proud to call itself progressive" "the party of Bob Stanfield, the party of Joe Clark, the party of mainstream and moderate leaders", is not as Paul Martin concluded "as dead as disco.".

I've always wanted to bet a political columnist a dinner. I hope he accepts:

This was kind of a spur of the moment thing based on Colby's writing off of Heward Grafftey. So I thought I'd bet him a big meal with booze no less.

This is what I sent him. I'll let you know if he accepts.

Colby:

I think you're wrong about Brome-Missiquoi. I've called for Grafftey to win, but that may be a might optimistic. However, I am dead certain that he will place as all the polls done only ask about the big five. So I will make you this offer:

Dinner, venue of the winner's choosing. Date and time of the loser's choosing, but before the 28th of February
Bill: To not exceed $200 for both parties including gratuity and alcohol
To be proferred: By myself, Sean Tisdall in the event that Heward Grafftey finishes worse than second place in the riding of Brome Missiquoi including ties

By yourself, Colby Cosh in the event of Heward Grafftey's finishing second or winning the riding of Brome Missiquoi.

Your option to excercise this wager is validated by an email to the return adress received before midnight tonight. My apologies for the short notice.

Thank you for your consideration,

Sean Tisdall

seanquixote.blogspot.com

This Hurts, David:

As an addendum to my NDP have it coming rant:

Dylan from Right of Center Ice also calls the NDP on their 2 party system BS.

On Jan 23rd I'll hate to say I told you so, but I did.

Sean's Endorsements for his loyal geeklings:

PC Party: In every riding they're running.

We're the only party with the guts not to promise a tax cut while we're up to our eyeballs in debt. We believe that the federal government needs to be assertive. And we'll make student loans accessable for all.

Bev Desjarlais: Churchill

Punish the NDP for not allowing their MP's to vote thier principles no matter whether or not I agree with them.

Liberals: Everywhere else.

Block Harper and buy Canada some time. The Liberals aren't great, but they're better than the alternative 282 times. The only evidence of Liberal corruption is NDP unsubstantiated allegation. That's not enough.

Good night and good luck.

Finally, someone calls the NDP on this shit. It only took 30 years:

1988. Federal election. The Nation as at odds over whether to sign the FTA (which wasn't really about free trade but it took us about a decade to figure that out.) Ed Broadbent knows what his campaign must do to save Canada. He steps up to the podium, frames the issue, and...

Undermines the credibility of the most voiciferous opponent of the deal. Yes ladies and gentlemen Ed Broadbent helped get the free trade deal through because he was too damn busy attacking Turner as dishonest. I'm not saying it was the whole ball game, but it was enough.

So today Paul Martin attacks Jack Layton for shiving the Grits to aid the Cons so that the NDP can do better in relation to the Liberals. Well duh.

My Free Speech for the Day:

What if you believe that the theatre is on fire?

Would it still be illegal then? Because most of these particularly loathsome individuals that hate speech laws prosecute are telling what they believe to be the truth. You know, just for the next time you use that shitty metaphor.

"While we generally support the idea of competition, while a person is having a heart attack, they are not going to be shopping for the best price."

-Tracy Parsons PC leader. She also notes in release, that you can find at www.pcparty.org, that money going to administration and profit in the US system doesn't go to health care.

And that's pretty much the arguement in favour of single payer health isn't it? There's too much desparation and acute need for people to ever make 'rational decisions' Canadians need choice when it comes to wellness, but not when it comes to care. There they need triage, quality, and patient focus. Wait time guarantees are a provincial matter. What we as a conumer polity need is a complete top to bottom audit of health care. The more information we as health care consumers, covered collectively by our government, have, the better we will be able to make decisions about the future of the system.

Just your though for today. Now I'm gonna go bitch at Steve for not plugging Great Canadian Pie.

An ad I'm surprised the Conservatives aren't running:

This is Stephen Harper's demographic here. Ug. Go Eskimos.

The Liberals are officially out of friends with microphones, but not friends with combines:

Heard this interview that David Orchard did on the House to plug an upcoming newser on monday in which he will endorse the Liberals. Anthony Germaine gave David quite a bit of flack over the supposed intellectual inconsistency of David Orchard looking at the options and essentially saying: Martin's bad, but he's getting better. Harper is much worse and essentially lying by omission to win the election. It strikes me that the CBC line is that David Orchard is a bitter dead-ender, an analysis that is myopic in the extreme. But hey, when you're suing a party that won't give you back money that's rightfully yours and have taken just as many shots at the Alliance as the Liberals what credibility can you have?

I would posit that if the wronged no longer have any credibility in Canadian Politics that we have truly abandoned any attempt to analyse the facts.

Also here is an interview which is a bit less anti-DO.

Now, I do think that in a parliament that once again come down to a near 50-50 split between federalists and provincialists that having a party like the Progressive Canadians pick up 2 or 3 seats might just be pivotal in keeping the Liberals honest and ensuring the centre holds. But, if I didn't have a PC running in my riding I might be voting Liberal too.

So I'd say that David Orcahrd is right 283 times out of 308. Not bad.

Oh, you know Harper's tax cut plan has got to be good if Deficit Buster Mike Wilson likes it.

I like the PC tax cut plan better: None. I asked Rahim Jaffer about this after the forum at Meyer Horowitz:

Are there no Keynesians in the Conservative Party? Not one person who said, "hey, we're in the middle of a boom and a cut might do more harm than good?"

He smiled wryly.

Also is it me or did Air Farce get funny in the last year?

If you disagree you can face the wrath of my heat vision.

You've just decided you're not going to even let him frame his own message any more are you, Canadian media?

No longer content to just call him on stupid shit he actually says, the good people of the Canadian Media have decided to show this photo wherein Paul Martin has obviously surrendered the millenium falcon and is about to be frozen in carbonite. This was from a speech in which Paulie explicitly attacked the economics of the conservative platform the total promises, of which, I've lost count. This is not momentum this is absolute freefall. How are they at 28%?! with the shit-kicking the Grits have taken they would be at 8% were they running against an opponent that the Canadian people trusted at all. I mean its staggering hbow absolutely nothing has gone right for the Liberrals and when the Conservatives have screwed up the grits seem to be on their heels with an equal failure. And when the order is revversed, the media doesn't pay attention to the latter. John Duffy must be good friends with Jim Beam right about now. It's absolutely insane for the PM to get worse coverage than the PC Party (Not that I'm complaining):

This showed up in my inbox today from the candidate in Windsor West

Jason Silvert wrote:
Today we had easily the best day on our campaign trail.

Tracy Parsons arrived in Windsor at approximately 10:30 this morning. We then headed to the University of Windsor Student Alliance (UWSA) All Candidates' debate, which began at noon. The debate went very well. The crowd seemed to love what we said. At one point, as Chris was defending Canadian Health Care, we received a "hear, hear" and some light clapping from audience members.

The A Channel and CBC news was at the debate, and toward the end of the debate I went to the A Channel reporter and told her that Tracy would be making our Post-Secondary Education announcement at the end of the debate, and I asked her to stay and cover it. She then told me that her assignment was the PC Party, and that of course she would be staying. She then informed the CBC camerawoman, who also decided to stay as well.

During Tracy's announcement, she was mic-ed by the CBC, so they could get audio for it while she was speaking. Tracy then was interviewed by the CBC, while Chris was interviewed by A Channel. After Chris was done, A Channel interviewed Tracy.

At 2:15 we spoke at an elementary school in Windsor. Myself in my capacity as Youth Wing president, Chris as the candidate, and Tracy as the leader. We got amazing questions from the kids, some were even tougher than we got at the University debate. In my opinion, it went over very well. When Chris told the kids that if we were to form government, Tracy would be the Prime Minister, we were rewarded with a gasp, and an "oh wow!" Of course, my hope is that the students will go home and tell their parents (and of course we provided them with literature.)

At 5:15 Tracy was live on CBC Radio Windsor, in an outstanding interview where she was allowed to clearly define us, and differ us from the Conservatives. She was given 10 minutes.

At 6:15, the CBC news segment aired, about 30 seconds of Tracy and Chris talking. No other local candidate was featured.

Then came the big one, at 6:18, on the A Channel, the anchor said "The UWSA held it's debate today, and aside from the Big 3, there were also some unfamiliar faces": It then cut to the reporter, and the first words out of her mouth were "The Progressive Canadian Party..." and then she talked about us, our hopes, and goals. It then focussed heavily on Chris, who got in a great jab at the Conservative candidate. It also showed a clip of Tracy announcing our program. It ended with the reporter saying, "For those interested in more information about the Progressive Canadian party, they are holding an event at the Ramada hotel tonight at 7pm." We couldn't believe it. Our event. Plugged. It was great. And again, no other local candidate was featured, or even mentioned.

The turnout to our event was lackluster, but it doesn't matter. We owned Windsor media from 5:15 until 6:30. And the fact that we held an event matters more than who did or didn't show up to it. Because "nobodys" do not hold events.

Then came the cap to a great night. I was finally able to pick up a copy of today's Windsor Star, and found that my letter to the editor was printed. I will paste it below to end this email, but it needs some background. On Jan. 6, there was an article in the Windsor Star about all the candidates, and we got the most coverage. But it quoted the Conservative candidate as saying the race only came down to him and the NDP Incumbent, Brian Masse. He then also mentioned that he hopes we "didn't get any votes we didn't earn, because of a play on initials." Referring, of course, to our PC initials. My response, as printed, is below.

This was such a great day, and we have so much momentum, it's just unbelievable. Sorry for the long windedness of this email, but I'm writing from memory, and I haven't even really come down from the incredible adrenaline rush.

Thanks to everyone again for all the support.

Jason Silvert

-----------------------Letter to the Editor, Windsor Star--------------------------

It was with surprise that I read Mr. Teshuba’s response to the existence of the Progressive Canadian Party’s presence in Windsor-West as a non-issue and as confusing for voters in your coverage on January 6, 2006. As Mr. Teshuba disregarded 60% of Windsor West electorate by dismissing all candidates but himself and Mr. Masse, it makes me wonder what he will do if he is elected. Will he still continue to dismiss approximately 60% of his constituents? Then, Mr. Teshuba goes on to say that he hopes voters aren't confused by "a play on initials." In the many hours I have spent canvassing Windsor West neighbourhoods, I can say that Our campaign, thus far, has not been confusing to voters – they have been clearly able to distinguish our policies of social moderation and fiscal conservatism from those of the Conservative Party, to which we can now add disrespect for opposing viewpoints.

It is this arrogant sense of self-importance that the Conservatives should be afraid of, not the possibility of voters "accidentally" voting for the "wrong" party. I, for one, give voters more credit than that.
The Progressive Canadian Party is comprised of everyday Canadians who are tired of the scandals, ignorance and blatant disrespect of tax payers presented by the other parties.

Jason Silvert
Campaign Manager
Chris Schnurr, Windsor West
Progressive Canadian (PC) Party

Nice. We've got the momentum, now all we need next time is many more candidates. Though we're running in more seats that the communists this time.

I know I always talk politcs and things with some degree of relevance, but it's post # 100. No better time to go off topic:

You know how dumb I think the electorate is. You know the 'nobody represents me' whiner who wants aliens from the future to come down to earth and fix everyting for them as opposed to getting off their ass and running or at leat randomly screaming at passers by. Right up there with the all politicians are corrupt bullshit. I've flat out had it and so I'm going to submit you my loyal reader to a review of the only DVD I have that I have yet to watch:

A.I.

You maybe thinking that you don't deserve this kind of treatment, but oh, you do.

And after having watched it I can say only this: A.I. is the story of Paul Martin Junior. Someone fixated on a goal for his entire life only to enjoy but a twinkling of poisoned triumph.

The tale of the tape:

Haley Joel Osment / David vs. Paul Martin

Creepy too-loud Laugh? Check.

Parentage he can never quite live up to? Check.

Perception of emminent replacability? Check.

Buried under ice for 2000 years? No.

Having a team coalesce around him dedicated to his happiness? Check.

Anamatronic Teddy Bear? No.

Having to cut back on food? Check.

Elements of society plotting his destruction as a form of catharsis? Check.

Poisoned Triumph? Check.

So that's about it for today. No eastter egggs folks.

For those wondering what kind of listing political hack on the way to oblivion would decalre major consitutional change in the middle of an election:

Pierre Elliot Trudeau at a Liberal ralley at Maple Leaf Gardens in the 1979 election unveiled his unilateral patriation position. He had not previously declared that he would even consider such a course of action previously. Liberal strategist John Duffy

There's an Edmonton-Strathcona all candidates' debate tonight at the Student's Union Building's Meyer Horowitz Theatere at 5:30.

I intend to be there. I hope Mr. Jaffer does too. Or at least that one of his aides will pretend to be him.

An open letter to Scott Feschuk:

As a former 'extremely young liberal' (Ages 6-8) I too inflicting the sting of political geekery upon my parents. I'll answer your son's questions for you:

"How did Paul Martin get to be leader?"

Tenure

"Why do they call the Conservatives the Tories?"

Because daddy's former employer is lazy and can't be bothered with letting you know the distinction between 2 parties let alone sixteen.

"Where do they get these poll numbers?"

They put very underpaid people called surveyers in a hot loud smelly little room and get them to phone 10 people. 9 people yell at them and the tenth hasn't got anything better to do so she or he tells the nice surveyer which party they hate least. They then tell the surveyer why. Is it their stance on money, or saftey, or maybe they like the same kind of muffin as the leader of the party. Then the surveyer puts the information into a computer and then its John's turn to tell you why the numbers don't matter.

"How come the Liberals were ahead and now they are not?"

Do you know how sometimes you work very hard for a while to build a fort out of blocks or something like that? And then after a while you get board and even though there was a lot of effort put into the fort, you just decided you'd change it. So you kick it down and run around laughing? That's why your daddy was limping and saying growly words yesterday.

"Will Paul Martin still be leader if they lose the election?"

No. Because then even if more people would see Paul Martin be the leader than Stephen Harper more people would have wanted Steven Harper to be leader more than anyone else than wanted Paul Martin to be leader than anyone else. Have trouble understanding this? Well Both Paul and Stephen's strategists think that most people would and so insted of explain how government works they've just decided that whoever gets the most seats, even if its less than half, can be leader and oh what a glorious 4 and a half months it will be.
"Only I have a comprehensive solution to the challenges inherent in the political and economic rise of China and India?"

Yeah, I don't believe that either.

Jack Layton should remember one thing when girding his loins as the defender of public health care: Know where you're pointin' that thing even if it is entirely Olivia's decision.

Jack Layton attacked Paul Martin for failing to stop the creeping privatisation of medicare. I put together a PC health care fact sheet, which compiled a large number of health statistics for Tory candidates. While compiling that fact sheet I learned something:

All sectors of Canada's health system have remained relatively constant in public-private mix for the last 30 years. The only reason that the private sector is growing as a proportion of overall health costs is that the services that weren't covered under medicare in the first place have become a more important part of the health care picture, namely drugs and non-physician medical professionals. The propotion of private phyisian spending was 1.7% in '82 and '02.

Jack, there has been no private sector encroachment on medicare and you are being disingenuous to assert that there has been. The Chaouli decision is the supreme court saying fund it properly or why the hell bother. There is no creeping privatisation, because the Canada Health Act is the not withstanding clause of medicare. Sure you can violate it, but at extreme political peril.

Please Jack: Quit creating straw men on the right. Medicare is not under any serious degree of attack. NAFTA is a bigger threat to socialised medicine than the 1 dollar out of every 59 spent on private physicians. Even wild-eyed-anti-po-mo-neo-waffler-magenta-tory me can tell you that much.

Damn you anonymous! Will you never stop vexing me?

I have to ask if this guy/girl will tell me who he/she is. I always like to know who I'm crawling into bed with. Of course let me say this:

Sean Tisdall gets into bed with no one!

(Sob.)

My god they've found me! Here! On the Internet! Where I was supposed to be unkowable! Anonymous Sean Tisdall me!

"You google easily"

-Tracy Parsons PC Party Leader

That's about all she's told me that I can quote.

Is it a good sign that we've got enough credibility that our leader wants to avoid scandal. I dunno. If we garnered disaster, calumny, and unopened bags of cheetos everywhere we went we too might be in second place.

Dearest voters of Edmonton Centre:

I fucxing told you so!

Oh sure, you laughed when I told you that you would be better off by owning petro can, and you voted for the stoner party. But who's laughing now?! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Haaaah!

Also I ran into Jung Suk today. He seems nice and I had to tell him I don't despise the Liberal party, merely deplore the vast majority of its major initiatives. I'm all tired out despising the Conservative and ND parties.

"You're better than the Conservatives. I also can beat a three year old in an arm wrestle."

-me to JS-Fellow-Super-Egotist.

Its okay, he seems to like when I make fun of him in loving fashion and also denies being Bob Bradley.

Now maybe I was a little too hasty regarding the PC platform.

I would remind people that these costs were in nominal terms and could be met if all other spending was kept constant and growth in govt. revenue was about 3.4% per year. don't believe me? add 1.034 to 1.034*1.034 to etc... for 5 years and multiply by 200 then subtract 1000. pretty close to 108.25 right?

So given that govt. revenues increase by an average of about 4% per year the platform is fairly conservative in estimates. Unlike the conservative platform which is fairly exhuberant with its promises. But, hey that's okay. Because, the Liberals are corrupt. At least that seemed to be Monte Solberg's reply, but then again that's what I got from the Edmonton Journal. You may want to form your own o-spin-ion.

Watch the debate 'tonite' as Paul Martin the lush from Lasalle-Emard takes on Stephen Harper the M.E. from Cal-gary. Heh? HEH!?

I'm gonna go have another beer.

Why Paul Wells is Canada's foremost political blogger-columnist and I'm eating pizza for breakfast:

Alert reader Gord G notes that I haven't blogged for a bit. "Your silence is deafening," he writes.

ONE: He has alert readers. I am your first last best line of defence against drink and dial.

It's simple, Gord: I'm feeling a bit chicken. This week hasn't gone well at all for the Liberals, but I believe it's still wayyyy too early to assume they've lost it. I frankly don't know what happens next. (Also I'm working on my day job, which is not a blog.)

TWO: He hasn't jumped the gun.

But here's an ad I'd run this weekend, if I was a Grit and seriously worried I was about to lose big:
BLANK BLACK SCREEN
TYPE APPEARS ACROSS SCREEN AS DEEP, URGENT VOICE READS TEXT:
"Foreign Minister Stockwell Day"
SCREEN DARKENS; RELIGHTS ON LIBERAL LOGO; BRIGHT WOMAN'S VOICE READS:
"On January 23, Vote Liberal."

THREE: He puts the obvious things in print where they look devastating.

So that's it. Paul Wells: Super Genius. Me: I'd like to claim modesty, but that's kind of hard when I have a blog in which I expressly advertise my own opinions.

Until my next installment of "typically verbose and overly-ambitious prose," this is Sean Tisdall saying that from whatever fair corner of our grand planetary satellite you originate or reside perchannce thou wouldst ruminate for but a twinkling upon the question: Wherefore moi?

Admittedly somewhat less detailed than the big 5, but still, the bases: Covered.

So the PC platform comes out and there is little to cost, and little specific enough to cost.

I'm going to analyse now and if I got anything wrong don't hesitate to let me know

Plank the first: We promise NO TWO TIER Health Care, period.If they can move from the back of the line to the front of the line solely because they are more well off will the line ever get shorter? The other parties have given up. We haven’t. Health care can be fixed.

Good. Recognises we'll get all the healthcare that we're willing to pay for.

Cost: Possibly more than the historical levels of health spending increase, which means 4% + inflation + population growth every year. So about 9% increases in nominal terms year to year on behalf of the feds. That would be less than $1.8Billion per year, so let's estimate conservatively and say this will cost $10B over five years.

Keep in mind, however, that given the current Alberta pilot program that just wrapped up produces appreciable increases in efficiency and is expected to be revenue neutral. If health technology can begin to focus on making health care less expensive instead of more heroic, now that life expectancy is 79 years and the greatest drawback of western medicine is the cost.

Plank the second: Progressive Canadians would keep commitments on Kyoto, and lead the way in environmental action. We believe that a country with clean air and water will be a place to invest. We believe that industries which serve the needs and desires of the world for environmentally responsible products and services will be able to compete for the best jobs and for economic prosperity in the new global economy.

I like it. I for one believe that Kyoto is good for the economy, because it means incentives to revitalise our infrastructure. Come the '80s, the Soviet economy was a high polution economy, whose industrial infrastuctue had become inefficient and out moded.

Cost: Nobody really knows!? There is no consensus on Kyoto costs. Could this be a long run money maker or an economy killer? Rest assured, however, that to meet Kyoto, and the next round, conventional energy prices will go up. This isn't an inherently bad thing. In fact we may see that offset by plank the fifth.

Plank the Third: The Real Alternative to Eliminating Student Debt
We will strive to keep our best and brightest in Canada to pursue their professional careers.
We will pave the way for our “Commitment to Canada” student financing plan which, in time, would see those who choose to do so be financed for their educations in return for a promise to commit to pursuing their careers in Canada for a set period of time.

Brilliant! Fights the supposed brain drain or improves the brain gain (take your pick) with a hard comittment from students AND has something of a 'try it, you'll like it' approach. Post secondary degrees as a percentage of the population is a key determinant of unemployment by region, so I'm going out on a limb here and saying that this will keep job creation strong, increase taxation revenue, and reduce EI and welfare costs.

Cost: I'm going to go worst case here again: Let's assume that there's no increase in incomes as a result. I recall the Alberta NDP saying that you could lower tutions 30% for 240mil a year. So $80Million a year would lower tutions by 10% in 10% of the country...

$40 Billion over five years

Plank the Fourth: It’s easy to make promises to get elected. We will keep the promise of .7 percent. We will find the money without tax increases. We are for the children, the mothers and fathers and the people in the world who are so desperately in need of our help.
We will find the funds for our peacekeepers for equipment and decent pay.

Good, but vague. There's no acceptable level of funding indicated here on the military side. Shall I go out on a limb and say a matching of the Alberta wage increase of 7.5% on the approx. $10B defence budget would be in order? Maybe, but now I'm just pulling costing out of my arse. Re: Foreign aid:
Given foreign aid of about $2B/year on a GDP of slightly more than $1T/year that makes an increase of $5B/year

Foreign Aid: $25Billion/five years
Military: $3.75Billion/five years

Plank the Fifth: Prosperity Canada is our program to support entrepreneurship, small businesses and 21st century industries in Canada. It’s time that we had an overall strategy for developing the type of economy that will bring us prosperity in the coming century.

This includes incentives to invest by strengthening the dollar, imporving our terms of trade and providing incentive to import instead of export and to focus on domestic markets.

I would normally have said that an increasein the value of the dollar to pre-FTA levels, which, at the time of introduction of the PC prosperity plan, would amount to a 10% increase in the value of the Canadian dollar or 1000 basis point years increase in our bank rate over existing levels, which would amount to a 10% increase in interest to be paid on the debt and a 10% increase in returns on the CPP reserve fund over the same time currently the diffence between the national debt and the CPP reserve fund is roughly $400 billion, however more of that debt, and if memory serves this has been noted by Hon. Mr. Stevens, can be taken up by the bank of Canada so long as the amount is not too expansionary in terms of monetary policy. This is one of the examples of having abandoned John Crowism (a pursuit of zero inflation) at the central bank.

Cost: $40 billion.

Plank the Sixth: Would you really mortgage your children’s future for a tax cut today? Canada has a mortgage to pay, nearly $500 billion. As long as nearly ¼ of your taxes pay just the servicing of the debt, tax cuts are deferred taxes passed onto your children. Let’s pay off our mortgage and then give real tax reductions, not just election gimmicks.

Finally, someone remebers that we still owe more than a half a trillion dollars in federal interest bearing debt. At the current prime rate of 5% that works out to over $25B/year in interest.

Cost: Assuming an average foregone tax cut of $10B/year, and I'm being pessimistic here, the Candian government would save $0.5B in the first year increasing to $2.5B in year five. so over the first five years savings would equal $7.5B, but factoring in the 1000 basis point year intrest increase those savings increase by 40% or to $10.5B a fine illustration of what happens in the event of a high interest rate economy, which is a distinct possibility (remember the 80's anyone?)

Therefore, total cost, derived by me spitballing for the past half hour of the PC platform: $108.25Billion over five years. But again that's the first five years viewed in isolation, which is still fairly short-term thinking in political terms.

So until whenever: Meh.

Do I think he believes his own BS most of the time? No. But he talks a damn good game:

The Conservative leader announces that he won't introduce the Liberal massive income tax cut plan. He will instead launch his own massive tax cut plan. So if you're a senior who already pays income tax on massive pension earnings with a child under the age of six that is taking public transit to hockey, you're all good.

The intelligence of this is that the Liberals now can't promise the moon and excorciate Harper for promising the moon and stars. Smart politics, and it makes the Conservative platform look almost responsible. It's not by a mile, but the optics are better. Still the entire conservative platform seems to be retroactive prosecution and tax credits, but hey, the average voter doesn't care about miscarriages of justice involving politicians as long as it hits the politicians too hard instead of not hard enough.

Guh, it's going to be a fun time fixing Canada's electoral laws.

Still, really, voting out of short-term self interest, I should be supporting the Liberals. However, I'm voting out of long term self interest and I want that debt paid the hell off so I'm voting for the Progressive Canadians.

All your Mace are belong to Grits:

I know it's just a typo, but really, is this the zero wing newswire?

"Pollsters are now asking is if the Conservatives will peak early again, as they did last time, or if different factors are be at play this time."

You sir/madam are killing english!

Quote for the day:

I swear to you Mike if I ever hear you use the phase Billion Dollar Boondoggle I will beat you senseless with the nearest blunt instrument do you hear me?"

-Me to Mike Fedeyko regarding strategy tips for upcoming all candidates forums.

I really don't like alliteration in politics. It's beyond tacky.

What the hell is wrong with you, my semi-loyal geeklings?!

I go to all the trouble of getting my hands on a copy of Great Canadian Pie. Steve Smith plugs the game. And yet there is no response?! Yea verily, WTF?! That's it! I have now gone to what I call my last ditch effort!

Behold: Screen Shots!

You will either email me at nitzwalsh86@yahoo.ca and let me know that you want to play or Steve and I will have to raise some sort of board game golems. And after they're done with the game of fiscal federalism they'll be coming for more, more, MORE!

And it'll be fun too.

Well fellow Tories, I gots good news and I gots bad news:

The good news is that we're running 25 candidates. And for the first time we're running candidates in Eastern Ontario (Ottowa), Quebec, Manitoba, and British Columbia.

The bad news is we have no Nova Scotia Candidates.

Still an improvement and we look to get more votes and maybe even win in Brome-Missiquoi or Winnipeg South Centre, where Dale Swirsky has raised about $12,000

Why the Conservatives are implicitly admitting that you probably shouldn't vote for them:

Let's take the URL of surviving Liberal Leaders and the most recent one to die: Paul Martin, Jean Chretien, John Turner, and Pierre Trudeau

www.paulmartin.ca The Liberal website
www.jeanchretien.ca What is this
www.johnturner.ca That man's always on the go
www.pierretrudeau.ca Wow, the Conservatives claiming Trudeau as one of thier own.

So let's check the Conservative leaders back to Stanfield:

www.stephenharper.ca No Surprise
www.joeclark.ca Deadish Link
www.prestonmanning.ca Better organised than the Conservatives. More intellectual too.
www.stockwellday.ca Very pretty facade
www.jeancharest.ca Dead Link
www.brianmulroney.ca Not the Conservatives
www.robertstanfield.ca Dead Link

Saddest of all:

www.kimcampbell.ca No befitting comment.

So. The Conservative party feels it needs to trade off of the ghosts of Liberals past to make their party known. At least we in the PC Party only mooch off of the legacy of our intellectual forerunners.

What I got from watching CBC today:

You can trust Jack Layton because he doesn't have any friends.

Anyone voting Liberal in the hopes that it will bolster national unity doesn't understand Quebec. I guess that includes Marc Garneau and possibly Joe Clark and David Orchard. Quel chauvinistic!

Paul Martin's gift to Canadians was almost two weeks without a speech from him.

Not from CBC: Scott Feschuck is beginning to grasp policy on his blog.


Paul Martin:

"I beilieve that you cannot cut a cheque for $25 and call it a strategy. It's not a strategy and it's not a solution... it does nothing for parents who can't find affordable care for thier children.

Just think what would have happened if Tommy Douglas My Father and Lester Pearson got together when they were considering medicare and said well we can't afford this, but let's give people a cheque for $25. It won't help people if they get sick, but we can call it a strategy. Heck, let's call it medicare."

Wow. Good. I'm not votin' for ya, but good.

Just Read John Raulston Saul's Book:

The Collapse of Globalism in which he refers to one of my favourite US presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, as "a one man NGO." I think this is a perfect analogy: At times infuriateing at times inspiring, totally reliant upon public support for sucess, yet totally unwilling to be subservient to those he deigns to represent. Truly an Edmund Burke style representative.

I've come to a somewhat sad conclusion:

The Liberals are going to lose. Chretien will cause this loss. But not due to la scandale, rather, the 2000 mini-budget which slashed taxes and government revenue has eliminated the moral authority of the Liberals to say that they will defend the public purse. If its a choice between the GST and income taxes Canadians will choose the GST out of spite and they wont hurt themselves too much as the debate between an incremental cut in the GST and an incremental cut in income tax are both stupid and expensive ideas that will do nothing to cut enforcement costs and will narrow rather than broaden the tax base.

People won't vote out of anger but rather ennui and so the vote will be perilously close. The Liberals will lose big in Ontario, win small in BC, and in Saskatchewan. Brian Mulorney will be very happy as well, because when he appointed that raft of Quebec Conservative senators, he never dreamt that they'd become cabinet ministers.

You see John Duffy refers to this at the pre-writ campaign and its one that the Liberals started losing in 2000 and reinforced during this parliament by coming out with tax cuts. They could have been courageous and said we're not touching your tax rates, but instead they tried to out bid Harper and trying to out bid a governmental minimalist is a real mug's game. By approaching the Conservatives in generousity, the Liberal platform blurred the difference between the two leaders and thus allows people to choose on stylistic issues. I hope we send a couple of Progressive Canadians to parliament, because this parliament is going to need some MPs willing to defent the power of the federal government.

Oh would that you would govern!

Holy Crap!

The Edmonton Spun printed my letter in context and then fired off a retort that was pre-emptively sissy slapped. Thank you letters editor.

RE: DEC. 27 editorial. Though initially I was lost for words by the exceptionally flawed reasoning of your editorial board, I still thought that I would take the gamble that your basic sense of logic might still overpower your partisanship: The great success in the pilot project was in centring resources on the patient and planning schedules and processes around the patient, rather than strengthening the organization. This could not have been achieved in a private system. You have confused private with arm's-length. For example: CN is private; Via Rail is arms-length. A private organization has one sole responsibility by law - to its shareholders. Government's role has been the focus of perpetual debate and a myriad of ideas. This program personified the idea of the individualist-servant nature of government - that government is not supposed to be about process, but rather achieving individual results. A company trying to make money can never embrace this model, as it would be bilking its shareholders out of their hard-earned investments.

Sean Tisdall

(You put too much faith in government.)

I 'put too much faith in government,' because, by definition, its the only organisation with a mandate to serve the public interest. But any literate reader already knew that from the aforementioned letter. Sometimes, if you complain shrilly (is that even a word?) enough, you do get your way; unless you're a separatist.