Conservative ads

You can find all the latest Conservative video ads here on their YouTube channel.

Since they were released the other day, there has been tonne of analysis done on them.  My opinion is that the ads aren't meant to gain support, but to reinvigorate and solidify existing hard and soft support, and because of that, they are effective.  I know it got me riled up again.

Some have said that attacking the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition doesn't rile up feelings.  I say B.S. Explain why in December 2008, when the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition agreement was at it's peak that Canadians flocked to supporting the Conservative government (support well above 40%)?  It's smart strategy.

These ads are in response to the heightened election speculation over the upcoming budget, where the political lines seem to be drawn over corporate tax cuts.  Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has embarked on another tour and hit the ice (he can skate you know, and a young girl in the video kept addressing Iggy as 'Mr. Prime Minister' -- sneaky how the Liberals kept that subtlety in multiple times).

Now back to the Conservatives ads... Liberal-leaning pundits have swathed that the Conservative ads are senseless attacks, yet their hypocrisy is abound with past ads touting "soldiers with guns in the streets", and guns pointed and fired at you dear TV viewer.  Sure it draws up feelings, and supposedly, according to those pundits, that it's effective.  Yet I don't know about you, but Liberal ads like that, as opposed to the recent Conservative ones, make me feel angry back at Liberals.

I'd be interested to see what, if any, Liberal ads come out in response soon, or whether they feel Iggy on Ice will suffice.

Somehow I doubt that though.

Woman faces jail time and fine for not filling out 2006 census

For those who didn't think it happened, well, it can happen.  Three months in a jail and a $500 fine.  Nice.

As I said last year, the real contentious issue surrounding the whole voluntary census form debate is one of enforcement.  Lefties/progressives/liberals/dippers/socialists NEED the data to justify their big program ideas and the only way they say to ensure the data is valid is to threaten citizens with a punishment.

Even then, many of them came out and said that no one has been punished.  I argue that if no one had been punished, then why the heck is it in the law in the first place?

What I also don't get is how polling companies continue to provide valid statistics and data on demographics to the very political parties that these lefties are members of.  They don't threaten jail time, yet use the data to make all sorts of decisions.

I continue to support the Conservative government's decision on replacing the mandatory census with a voluntary one.

I'm still putting Jedi as my religion though.

Ukrainian gov't still corrupt

Quick history... last year, Viktor Yanukovych won the Ukrainian election and became president.  In the previous election, Viktor Yushchenko supposedly lost to Yanukovych, but as the people knew of the widespread electoral corruption emanating from Yanukovych, the Orange Revolution was born, combining the forces of Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko's parties.  Yushchenko, a dashing, handsome man, was then poisoned, supposedly by operatives from Yanukovych, causing his face to deform.  With mass sit ins and peaceful protests by thousands of Ukrainians in Kiev, a revote occurred, with Yushchenko winning the presidency.

Yushchenko then appointed Tymoshenko as prime minister, but after much infighting, in a bizarre move, he fired her and put Yanukovych in as prime minister.  Then once Yanukovych became president, he put second place Tymoshenko as prime minister.

Last year after the election, Prime Minister Harper's visit to Ukraine and meeting the Ukrainian president was marked with much of his own subtle symbolism.  With all the formalities, the ongoing and underlying issue remains the recognition of Holodymor, the mass starvation of Ukrainians by Stalinist Russia in the 1930's.  No such recognition from Yanukovych, but Harper's visit to a memorial in the Western Ukrainian city of L'viv, certainly showed Canada's memory.

Ukraine is becoming a more divided nation and perhaps it is mere geography between the West and East, but there is no doubt that Russian influence continues to encroach with it being the dominant language in the East, and where the current president gets most of his support from.  Having Yanukovych as president does no wonders for democracy and Ukraine's destiny as a truly independent country, tied to the West and distinguished from Russia.


Ukraine remains Canada's top European aid recipient for judicial and electoral programs.  But the country of 45 million continues to have governmental corruption amongst the ranks.  Ukraine is a key and central democratic country and an affront to the rising power of Russia and Vladimir Putin's influence.  In a way, it is much like Israel in the Middle East and why Canada should continue to have influence.

But what happens to that influence when Yanukovych wins another term, Putin gets back in as Russian president and extends the terms to 6 years, allowing him to rule for 12 years?

What's the saying? 

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

"Go North", not to Alaska, but Canada

A lot of bloggers have been praising the opt-ed by Washington Times journalist James Bacon titled "Go north, young man, go north - Canada is quietly surpassing the U.S. as the land of opportunity".

Some excerpts:

"Look what's not happening in Canada. There is no real estate crisis. There is no banking crisis. There is no unemployment crisis. There is no sovereign debt crisis. Recent reports suggest that consumers are loading up too much debt, but Canada shares that problem with nearly every other country in the industrialized world."

"Now, instead of expanding Canada's welfare state, the conservative government led by Mr. Harper is intent upon building the nation's global competitiveness. Our friends in the Great White North cut their corporate tax rate to 16.5 percent on Jan. 1 and will see it drop to 15 percent next year. That compares to the current U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 percent. That will give Canada the lowest corporate tax rate among the G-7 nations and an eye-popping advantage for businesses wondering whether to locate on the U.S. or Canadian side of the border."

Wait a sec... 35% U.S. corporate tax rate compared to 15% in Canada?!!!  That's a huge difference.  Luckily, I work for a good company that has profit shares, share options, and wide benefits.  With a lower corporate tax rate, those savings are simply passed onto our employees.  Then, guess what, the government still gets its money from income tax, CPP, and EI deductions.

All the lefties like Jack Layton bash business when they see that companies get to keep more money.  It makes no sense to me and defies logic.  Here they want their union members to get more benefits from a company but want to tax those same companies at a higher rate.

With the Canadian Loonie and U.S. Greenback now at par for some time, will Canadian investors keep their money in Canada or buy up companies in the U.S. and abroad, or both?

Payroll taxes up 1% starting Jan. 1, 2011

Oh boy.  If you make about $35k per year, expect $70 extra taken off each monthly pay cheque.  That's no small change and works out to $850 per year for that income, I'm sure a lot of struggling families cannot afford.  Happy frickin' new year.

I agree with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and saying that if you haven't used EI, you should pay less over the years, like a true insurance system would work.  I've never used it and can't imagine how much of that I paid into it since I started working in high school could have been used for other necessities or whatever I want to use it for.  Call me crazy, but maybe like a Super RRSP, we each have our own EI account and are required to pay into it, not a general unmanaged fund.  What if, we could invest that money and if we did become unemployed, could then easily tap into that insurance fund?

Merry Christmas comeback

While starting my shopping today, I was quite happy to hear all the store clerks not wish me happy holidays or seasons greetings, but a Merry Christmas.

And so to all my readers and your families, from all of us here at Hatrock's Cave, we pass on those good wishes by hoping you all have a Merry Christmas and be good to each other always!

The Sergeant - an Alberta politics spoof

Well this is different and frickin' hilarious! ND leader Brian Mason should get an Emmy. Apparently, the NDs and Wildrose Alliance got together to produce this little video. Watch and enjoy!

Parliamentary numbers

Today, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed two folks to the Senate--former CFL commissioner Larry Smith and Toronto preacher Don Meredith, bumping the Conservatives' standings in the 105 seat Senate to 54, just short of a majority but enough to get bills from the House passed and defeat opposition bills. (Correction: strikeout "just short of a majority")

As well, the Globe and Mail has an interesting and easy to read article on seat standings in the House of Commons.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

	Current	Hypothetical*	Difference
Conservative	143	154	+11
Liberal	77	73	-4
BQ	47	47	n/c
NDP	36	32	-4
Ind.	2	2	n/c
Vacant	3		-3

* - if Conservatives win all vulnerable seats and incumbant parties win vacanies.
So in the hypothetical situation, the Conservatives would be in majority zone with 50% of the seats, plus the two independents who usually vote with the government.

Now let's look at the senate.


SENATE

	Current	Hypothetical*	Difference
Conservative	54	43	-11
Liberal	47	41	-6
BQ	0	14	+14
NDP	0	4	+4
Progressive Conservative	2	1	-1
Ind.	2	2	n/c

* - if an elected Senate were in place in 1995.  Now this isn't entirely accurate of today's political climate but shows why there's a push by the Conservatives to have 8-year term limits for senators to try and knock off as many Liberals as possible.

ELECTION SPECULATION

Opposition Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has been throwing speculation balloons out there regarding the upcoming federal budget and that the Liberals will vote against it likely to trigger an election.  While at the same time, the Prime Minister has smartly said that there won't be a "poison pill" in the budget to vote against.  But that doesn't mean there might be a contentious one for the Liberals to trigger an election on and that issue may be the election focus among other things like a North American border for freer trade, refugee reform, and the continuing justice bills.

By saying he doesn't want to trigger an election, what the Prime Minister has done is put the ball in Ignatieff's hands.  The Conservatives are in power, have been leading in the polls, have way more money than the Liberals, and are also getting things through the Senate now so the momentum is with them for sure.  If the Liberals want to have an election, bring it on, but Canadians will know that it was Ignatieff who triggered it.  So in essence, Harper has once again out-manoeuvred Iggy once again.

MY PREDICTION

My guess is that secret backroom Liberals controlled by Bob Rae will push to defeat the budget, go for an election, sour the campaign to make Ignatieff look bad, reducing the number of Liberals seats to about 70, with the Conservatives barely winning a majority. Then a legitimate summer/fall Liberal leadership race will happen with Bob Rae going up against Trudeau, Kennedy, LeBlanc, and a handful of other candidates who want name recognition.

LIBERAL-NDP MERGER

If the Conservative get another minority, former NDP now Liberal leader Bob will push for the creation of the Liberal Democrats as a merger between the Liberals and NDP.  If a merger happens (although I don't think it will) the opposition will defeat the government again in late 2012 or 2013.  Bob may be in a good position here though as Canadians may grow tired of Stephen Harper, including Conservatives who wanted a majority.

In regards to the merger, there are a chunk of blue liberals who would probably jump ship to the Conservatives knowing there would be a strong socialist wing to the party.  And don't count out the Greens.  If they ever get a new leader who actually has political prowess, the Greens could cause vote splitting.

BACK TO THE PRESENT

So I think if Harper actually sees that the odds of a majority is above 40%, he'll poison the budget enough for the Liberals to have no choice but to defeat it.  If not, how long will Ignatieff wait as opposition leader and how long will Bob Rae sit and wait for his opportunity to strike?

In the meantime, Stephen Harper really has nothing to lose either way.

Federal seat projections

I read Liberal blogs often and there's a few that are valuable resources on nominations, election results, and polling data.  This post by blogger Calgary Grit is significant as it shows the Conservatives have improved their odds at winning a majority if an election were held now.  While the odds average around 17% at winning, it is perhaps showing that now the Conservatives have penetrated the Toronto Liberal fortress by winning the byelection in the riding of Vaughan, a Liberal stronghold for 22 years, that there's some momentum here. 

Election speculation 2011

Ah, speculation is in the air!  Journalists love to speculate.

There is speculation that upcoming bills may be defeated by the opposition. And any one of them may be a matter of confidence. And the Conservatives set it up this way so they'd head to the polls before their Spring bad news budget, which, rumours say, is full of spending cuts and freezes.

There is also speculation that the Conservatives will get by the bills, but make the budget so sour and very fiscally conservative that the Liberals will be trapped and have no choice but to defeat it because it "just goes too deep", forcing an election.  Or it could be tainted with the removal of the party funding thing.

The Conservatives are polling quite well right now, some having them 13 points ahead, 2 to 1 over the Libs in B.C., 7 points ahead in Ontario, and virtually tied in Quebec with the Libs.  Despite the efforts of Iggy and Co. in "crossing" Canada this summer and yapping against everything (and he certainly wasn't in the House to actually vote for or against either though), the Liberals have difficulty staying above 30% and are constantly near their lowest numbers ever.

Let's also not forget that this is the longest running minority government in Canadian history and could very well continue as long as the Liberals keep pumping out weak leaders.

And just ignore anyone from any party who says, "Canadians don't want an election right now."  Canadians don't necessarily determine when elections are so it's a meaningless statement.  I doubt the Prime Minister will prorogue again and is more interested in simply governing, but has no problem in possibly going to the polls by being defeated by the opposition led by the Liberals.

So the question is not whether the Conservatives want to fight an election, it's if the Liberals are.  More so, is Bob Rae willing to have Ignatieff die on his sword in losing in an election for Bob to take the reigns.

On the Conservative side, if Harper fails to achieve a majority, which they are very close to doing, the knives will be out.  With Jim Prentice taking a break from politics, with Peter Mackay waiting waiting waiting, Jason Kenney having a chunk of quiet support, there is also an outsider in the name of former New Brunswick Premier, Bernard Lord, who was recently opted by Toronto Star Harper-hater journalist Jim Travers. 

Lord apparently wants to run for MP and be a cabinet minister after the next election.  He's young at 46, so there isn't a rush to go for the prize.  He would simply need to wait, as the others have done. 

And let us not forget Quebec conservative crusader Maxime Bernier who's been giving speech after speech trumpeting core conservative values. He'd certainly be competitive.

But then again, never underestimate Mr. Harper's ability to relegate any seemingly competitive members to the sidelines, as he's successfully done with his cabinet ministers and Liberal leaders for that matter.

And if that's the case, we'll be reading in the headlines "Prime Minister Stephen Harper" for years to come.